Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01097-6/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

DAVID D. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAKEMAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-1097 LJO NEW (DLB) P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc. 20.) 

 David D. Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

August 26, 2005. Plaintiff names Dr. Bakeman and Warden Yates as Defendants. 

On November 2, 2006, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff

submitted an Amended Complaint on November 22, 2006, which is pending before the Court. 

On January 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Permanent Injunction requesting that the

Court issue an Injunction because the Defendants are creating a “false crime occurrence” against

he plaintiff in the form of threats, lack of feeding, etc. Plaintiff’s Motion consists of one hundred

five pages (105). The Court issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the Motion for

Permanent Injunction informing Plaintiff that his request was premature as the Court had yet to

determine whether the Complaint stated a cognizable claim for relief. Despite this, Plaintiff filed

a Motion for Summary judgment on January 29, 2007. The Court issued Findings and

Recommendations to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment on February 22, 2007, again

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 21 Filed 03/06/07 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

informing Plaintiff that his request was premature as the Court had yet to determine whether

there were any cognizable claims raised in the Complaints. 

On February 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Show Cause for

Temporary Restraining Order.” In this pleading, Plaintiff complains that he was forcibly taken

out of his cell and is not being allowed to research his case. Plaintiff also lists a number of other

incidents which he feels warrants a restraining order. 

A restraining order is another form of injunctive relief. As stated in the prior Findings

and Recommendation, 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 may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons

not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

1985) (emphasis added). 

As noted above, the Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend because

it did not allege cognizable claims for relief. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint which is awaiting a second screening by the Court. Plaintiff is not entitled to

preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the Court finds that his Amended Complaint

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants and the named defendants

have been served with the summons and complaint. At this juncture, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 21 Filed 03/06/07 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

Preliminary Injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff is cautioned that any further motions for

preliminary injunctive relief that are filed before Defendants are served with process in this case

will be denied as premature. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order be DENIED. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 5, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 21 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 3