Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445-17/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GIBSON, CASE NO. CV-F-03-5445 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING MOTION FOR

vs. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

ALAMEIDA, et al., [Doc. 119, 145]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 26, 2006 and October 10, 2006, plaintiff filed motions for

preliminary injunction seeking orders prohibiting defendants from disrupting his ability to prosecute this

action including, retaliating against him for filing this lawsuit, searching his cell, moving him, and

tampering with his outgoing mail. Plaintiff also requests that the witnesses identified in his motions be

transferred to Tehachapi security housing if they fear for their safety due to providing testimony in this

case. 

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

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 171 Filed 02/26/07 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

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.

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claims of excessive force and retaliation. In his current

motion, plaintiff seeks orders from the court relating to the prosecution of the present lawsuit. Plaintiff’s

complaint does not include any claims similar to his request. The court cannot issue orders that do not

remedy the claims alleged in this action. Plaintiff is not entitled to orders that, rather than serving to

remedy the claimsin this action,serve to allow plaintiff to litigate this action more effectively. 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).

Since the complaint in this case does not contain allegations raising issues similar to those presented in

the instant motion, there is no controversy present with respect to such issues and, as a result, the court

cannot address either the likelihood of success on the merits or whether there are serious questions going

to the merits of plaintiff’s claims. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motions for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed March 27, 2006 and October 10, 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 fifteen (15) 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

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 171 Filed 02/26/07 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

Dated: February 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 171 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 3