Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00210/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00210-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

JIMMY RAY BLOW,

Plaintiff,

v.

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00210-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Docs. 7, 8, 9)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Jimmy Ray Blow (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal

actors. Plaintiff filed motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief on March 5, 2008, March 19,

2008, and March 24, 2008. 

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). “[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the

threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or

controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983)

(citations omitted); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition,

any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in

Case 1:08-cv-00210-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 04/04/08 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

relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no

further than necessaryto correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.

The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief 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.” 18 U.S.C. §

3626(a)(1)(A). 

In a separate order issued concurrently with this finding and recommendation, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim under federal law.

At this juncture, there is no actual case or controversy before the Court and therefore no

jurisdictional basis upon which to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly,

the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed

March 5, 2008, March 19, 2008, and March 24, 2008, be DENIED.

This finding and recommendation 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 thirty (30)

days after being served with this finding and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections

with the Court. 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 3, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00210-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2