Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00589/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00589-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

P.L. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:CV-06-00589-OWW -DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 6)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On May 25, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis

or pay the filing for this action. Plaintiff has not yet complied with the order. On June 28, 2006,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requiring prison officials to bring plaintiff before the

court along with his medical file and central file.

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted). The purpose of a

preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the

moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the

action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A

preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) a combination of

probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and

the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935,

Case 1:06-cv-00589-LJO -DLB Document 7 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of

irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of

success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of

success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited jurisdiction, as a

threshold and preliminary matter the court must have before it for consideration a “case” or

“controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). If the court does not have a “case” or

“controversy” before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.

2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). At this juncture, the court has not yet determined whether plaintiff

states any cognizable claims for relief in this action. Indeed, plaintiff has not yet been granted leave

to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. Thus, at this time, plaintiff is not entitled to any

type of preliminary injunction, as the court lacks jurisdiction to issue any such orders.

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed June 28, 2006, be DENIED, without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00589-LJO -DLB Document 7 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2