Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00503/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00503-2/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

JEFFREY AHART, CASE NO. CV-F-06-0503 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S

vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

OBJECTIONS DUE MAY 20, 2007

CDC, et al.,

[Doc. 19]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed April 19, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks a transfer to a medical facility. 

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

so heavily favors themoving 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

Case 1:06-cv-00503-LJO -DLB Document 20 Filed 04/24/07 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

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.

“A federal court mayissue 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). Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his

complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants

have been served with the summons and complaint. At this juncture, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff mayfile anothermotion for preliminaryinjunctive relief at a later

stage. Plaintiff is cautioned to any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are filed before

defendants are served with process in this case will be denied as premature. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 19, 2007, be denied, without prejudice, as premature. 

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). Plaintiff may file written

objections with the court on or before May 20, 2007. 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 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00503-LJO -DLB Document 20 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 2