Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02227/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02227-0/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

PERCY STOCKTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORTIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02227-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 6)

Plaintiff Percy Stockton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 23, 2009. On January 14, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a document advising the Court of incessant ongoing harassment and expressing

concern over whether his property might be intentionally lost in an anticipated transfer to another

facility. Therein, Plaintiff inquired as to whether the Court might express concern to the Warden as

to the safekeeping of Plaintiff’s property throughout the transfer process. Plaintiff’s letter is hereby

construed as a request for preliminary injunction.

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

1

Case 1:09-cv-02227-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 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

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 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). If the Court does not have an actual case or

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of injury in

fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy

requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its

existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). 

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn,

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least

intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”

At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff’s complaint has not been screened to ascertain

whether he has stated any claims for relief which are cognizable under federal law. As a result, the 1

Court has no jurisdiction at this time to award any preliminary injunctive relief. Further, assuming

Plaintiff will be able to cure any deficiencies found in his claims to set forth one or more viable

federal claims, Plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefthat is not narrowly drawn to correct the violation

of his rights at issue in this action. The constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to

equitable relief preclude Plaintiff from entitlement to generalized reliefsuch as an order prohibiting

the defendants from retaliating against him for filing this lawsuit or somehow protecting his property

from being intentionally lost during transfer to a different facility. Assuming Plaintiff is able to state

a viable claim, such equitable relief, by its very nature, will not be sufficiently related to Plaintiff’s

underlying legal claim to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements that apply to federal courts.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed January 14, 2010, is

Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course.

1

2

Case 1:09-cv-02227-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 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

HEREBY ORDERED DENIED because the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the orders sought.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court does not reach the merits of the motions.

2

3

Case 1:09-cv-02227-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 Page 3 of 3