Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00310/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00310-8/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00310-AWI-LJO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,

MANDAMUS, AND TO COMPEL BE

DENIED

(Docs. 13, 14, 18, and 20)

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff, who is housed Kern Valley State Prison, filed this action on

March 21, 2006. On September 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requiring

defendants to grant plaintiff medical care and treatment, recreation, programs, activities, and canteen

and package privileges, and to cease discriminating against him, and a motion seeking treble

damages and damages under patent litigation, to compel the production of documents, and a writ of

mandamus. (Docs. 13, 14.) On December 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order

requiring defendants to grant plaintiff mailing privileges and access to the courts. (Doc. 18.) On

December 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion which in part seeks an order mandating his transfer to

San Quentin State Prison or Vacaville State Prison due to plaintiff’s inability to obtain medical care.

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)

Case 1:06-cv-00310-AWI-LJO Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 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

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.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. 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). 

At this juncture, there is no case or controversy before the court. In a separate order issued

concurrently with this Findings and Recommendations, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint,

with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims upon which relief may granted. Until and unless

plaintiff is able to state a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, there is no case or controversy

before the court and plaintiff is not entitled to any preliminary injunctive relief. In addition,

plaintiff’s motions are utterly unsupported with any evidence demonstrating “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, 819 F. 2d at 937. 

With respect to mandamus, district courts have “original jurisdiction of any action in the

nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy

. . . [and] is appropriately issued only when (1) the plaintiff’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the

Case 1:06-cv-00310-AWI-LJO Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 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

defendant official’s duty to act is ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and

(3) no other adequate remedy is available.” Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994)

(internal citations and quotations omitted). 

In addition to the fact that plaintiff has made no showing he is entitled to mandamus, this

court has no jurisdiction over state officials. 28 U.S.C. § 1651; see also Demos v. United States

Dist. Court for E. Dist. Of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, plaintiff’s motion

would have to be denied, other fatal deficiencies notwithstanding.

With respect to plaintiff’s motion to compel, any such motion is premature. The only party

to this action at this juncture is plaintiff and discovery is not open. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, mandamus, and to compel, filed September 20, 2006, December 11,

2006, and December 26, 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, 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: January 24, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00310-AWI-LJO Document 25 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 3