Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688-4/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

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05688 OWW LJO P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 30)

Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2006, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking judicial intervention, which the Court construes to be a motion seeking

preliminary injunctive relief. 

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 ofthe 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, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a significant threat ofirreparable 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

///

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 31 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

On July 12, 2006, plaintiff’s legal and personal property was confiscated from his cell at the

California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility in Corcoran by Correctional Officers Mobert and

Wheeler. (Doc. 30, ¶1.) Plaintiff characterizes the confiscation as “illegal” and seeks intervention

by the Court because he needs his legal material to litigate the pending action. (Id., ¶4.) 

As plaintiff has been previously notified, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

(Doc. 18.) 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),

and 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). 

The claims in this action arise from plaintiff’s conditions of confinement at the California

Correctional Institution in Tehachapi. (Docs. 9, 19.) The issuance of the order sought by plaintiff

in his motion would not remedy the claims alleged in this action, and the Court therefore has no

jurisdiction to issue the order sought. The pendency of this action may not be used as a basis to

obtain a preliminary injunction aimed at assisting plaintiff in litigating this action effectively or

efficiently. The Court notes that at this juncture, plaintiff’s second amended complaint is awaiting

screening by the Court. The Court has a large number of cases pending before it and will screen

plaintiff’s complaint in due course. 

For the foregoing reason, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed July 27, 2006, be DENIED.

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, the parties may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 31 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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: August 25, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 31 Filed 08/25/06 Page 3 of 3