Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00820/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00820-12/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff St. Michael Balzarini (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 30, 2013. This action 

proceeds against Defendants Ulit and Agtarap for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution while Plaintiff was housed at 

Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff is currently housed at Mule Creek State Prison. 

On October 3, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment to revoke 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and dismiss this action. (ECF No. 35.) 

On October 24, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the 

motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 38.) 

On November 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition to Defendants’ pending motions. 

(ECF No. 41.) As part of his opposition, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the 

ST. MICHAEL BALZARINI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KYLE LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 41)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 49 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to contact treatment centers, have him 

evaluated for Hep-C treatment and provide him with treatment. (ECF No. 41, p. 24, 28.) Plaintiff 

asserts that Mule Creek State Prison is not equipped to treat his medical needs or provide treatment 

and asks to be placed in a prison that can treat him. (ECF No. 41, p. 30.) 

Defendants filed an opposition on November 25, 2014. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff did not reply

and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

II. Discussion

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). 

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). 

An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 

22 (citation omitted).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for injunctive 

relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 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). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, 

it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 

454 U.S. at 471. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] 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 Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 

(9th Cir.1983); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (listing persons bound by injunction). 

The action concerns Plaintiff’s allegations of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 

by Defendants Ulit and Agtarap while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison. (ECF No. 25.) 

Plaintiff is now housed at Mule Creek State Prison and the order sought is aimed at remedying his 

current conditions of confinement and medical treatment at Mule Creek State Prison. The Court lacks 

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 49 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 3
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

jurisdiction in this action to issue an order directed at Mule Creek State Prison staff or the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for a 

preliminary injunction, filed November 13, 2014, be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 

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)(1). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00820-LJO-BAM Document 49 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 3