Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00012-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL EARLE BOYER, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

ANNE FRANCES PETERS, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00012-AWI-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOC. 7) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil

rights violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and

72-304.

I. Background

On February 28, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s

complaint, which was filed on January 5, 2006, dismissed with

leave to file a first amended complaint by March 31, 2006.

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. The initial

complaint concerned property matters that had been adjudicated,

or were being adjudicated, by a state court. 

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 4
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

II. Injunctive Relief

On February 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for

injunctive relief concerning a notice of right to reclaim

abandoned property that was sent to him by Defendant. Plaintiff

seeks an order prohibiting Defendant from disposing of any of

Plaintiff’s personal property.

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

Here, Plaintiff has not shown probable success on the

merits.

More fundamentally, because there is no complaint pending,

there is no case or controversy before the Court. A federal court

is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited

jurisdiction, as a threshold and preliminary matter the Court

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 4
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

must have before it for consideration a “case” or “controversy.” 

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). (Docs. 26, 43.) If the

court does not have a “case” or “controversy” before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. Rivera v. Freeman, 469

F. 2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). “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).

Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed, with leave to

amend, for failure to state a claim. Because Plaintiff has yet to

file a pleading that contains any cognizable claims for relief,

Plaintiff is not, at this juncture, entitled to any preliminary

relief.

Further, Plaintiff is informed that until the Court

completes its screening process of any amended complaint

ultimately filed by Plaintiff and determines that a cognizable

claim has been stated, injunctive relief would be premature.

III. Recommendation

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief BE DENIED.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within ten (10) court days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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: March 8, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 4