Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv00456 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT

ORDER

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on March 11,

2009. Defendants have not yet appeared in this action. 

On September 25, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order commanding defendants 

to disclose to Plaintiff the name(s) of their counsel. The Court treats Plaintiff’s motion as a request 1

for injunctive relief.

///

///

///

///

Plaintiff states that he requires the information so that he may serve his discovery requests upon

1

defendants. However, defendants have not yet filed an answer in this action and the Court has not yet issued an

order opening the discovery phase of this litigation.

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/14/09 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

In this instance, the Court does not jurisdiction in this action to issue the ordersought, as the

case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact that the relief Plaintiff seeks bears

no relation to the past events at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility giving rise to this

suit. (Doc. 1, p.3.) 2

Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 13, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2

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, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must 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); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an

actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “A federal court may issue 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).

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 13 Filed 10/14/09 Page 2 of 2