Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-17/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

SCOTT STEARNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORES,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6331 LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (Docs.

305, 306, 307.) 

 Scott Stearns (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.

§636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

On August 4, 2005, Plaintiff moved for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff states

that new case law in the Northern District of California provides that an inmate who is labeled as

a gang member may be released after 6 years with no gang acts alleged. Plaintiff alleged that he

should now be released. 

As noted above, the Court initially issued Findings and Recommendations on November

7, 2005, concerning the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff filed Objections to

the Findings on November 17, 2005.

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 372 Filed 02/08/06 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

the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune,

Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also

Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent

two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. "Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a

significant showing of irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. Id.

Because the federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, as a threshold matter, the court

must have before it a case or controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). Absent such a

case or controversy, the court has no power to hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d

1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). 

After consideration of Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. As noted above, the Due Process claim

concerning Plaintiff’s validation as a gang member was resolved by the District Court on August

30, 2005. Thus, the issue of gang validation is no longer part of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 372 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2