Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00550/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00550-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GONZALES CASE NO. CV-F-05-0550 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S

vs. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

OBJECTIONS DUE MAY 7, 2007

YAMAT, et al.,

[Doc. 16]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On March 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requiring Officers Munoz and

Yamat to provide copies for plaintiff. The Court construes this as a request for 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 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

Case 1:05-cv-00550-AWI-DLB Document 18 Filed 04/12/07 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

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.

With respect to copies, a preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of ensuring that

plaintiff is able to litigate this action effectively or efficiently. 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). The issuance of the orders

sought by plaintiff in his motions would not remedy any of the claims alleged in this action.

Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed March 30, 2007, 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). On or before May 7,

2007, 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: April 11, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00550-AWI-DLB Document 18 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2