Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01829/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01829-0/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

DARYL K. HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPEARMAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 1829 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER (Doc. 3-1) 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

COMPLAINT (Doc. 3-2.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND

PLAINTIFF BLANK FORM 

 Daryl K. Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On December 19, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Injunctive Relief to the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. However, Plaintiff did

not file a Complaint. The Court opened the case with the Motion for Injunctive Relief and

transferred it to the Fresno Division on December 19, 2006. 

On January 3, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a second Motion for Temporary Injunction and

Request to Amend. In this Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an Injunction

compelling the Defendants to “restore” Plaintiff’s legal property. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-01829-ALA Document 5 Filed 01/10/07 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

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, 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, Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims for relief in this action as

the Court has yet to screen the pleadings filed by Plaintiff. As stated above, the only thing on file

is an initial Motion for Injunctive Relief that also alleges that Plaintiff’s legal property was

confiscated while Plaintiff was confined at Lancaster State Prison in December 2005. 

(Complaint at 2.) However, this is insufficient to provide the Court with sufficient information

so as to screen the Complaint. As the Court has yet to determine whether Plaintiff alleges

cognizable claims, he is not entitled to any type of preliminary injunction. 

The Court notes further that Plaintiff’s allegations do not provide sufficient information

to allow the Court to make a determination that the action alleges cognizable claims for relief. 

Thus, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Request to Amend and send Plaintiff a blank civil rights

Case 1:06-cv-01829-ALA Document 5 Filed 01/10/07 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

form to complete and return to the Court. Plaintiff should be brief and only provide those facts

that support a constitutional claim for relief. Plaintiff should also refrain from submitting

evidence in support of his allegations as to do so would be premature. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive

relief filed on January 3, 2007, be DENIED, without prejudice.

2. 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).

3. Plaintiff’s Request to Amend is GRANTED and Plaintiff SHALL file an

Amended Complaint within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this

Order;

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a blank Civil Rights form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01829-ALA Document 5 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 3