Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06031-12/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

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

BRIDGETT BRADFORD, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6031 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING MOTION FOR

vs. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

G. SCHOONARD, et al., [Doc. 39]

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 January 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for

Speedy Removal” in which plaintiff requests that the court issue an order transferring her from

Chowchilla Women’s Facility (“CWF”) to Valley State Prison (“VSP”) for “preservation, health and

safety.” The Court construes this as a motion seeking 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

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,

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 51 Filed 09/06/06 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

or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

This action is proceeding against defendant Dr. Suryadevera for deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs and against defendants Dr. Suryadevera, Hodgdon, Schoonard and Paine for retaliation.

In her motion, plaintiff seeks a court order transferring her to Valley State Prison. The Court has no

authority to make such an order nor does any party named as a defendant in this action.

The court is unable to issue any order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending

before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Plaintiff’s motion fails

to link any alleged conduct or harm to a party named in this action. In addition, plaintiff’s amended

complaint does not contain a cause of action for similar permanent injunctive relief. Rather, in his

amended complaint, plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other unrelated injunctive relief. 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).

Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory request for a transfer order is insufficient to support a motion for

preliminary injunctive relief. Although plaintiff submits her motion in the form of a declaration, her

declaration does not support a finding that plaintiff is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief,

filed January 9, 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. 

Dated: September 5, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06031-AWI-DLB Document 51 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 2