Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00075/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00075-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ACORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINGS COUNTY WELFARE

INVESTIGATOR RICHARD MEYERS,

et.al.

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04-6738 AWI DLB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

BE DENIED

[DOC 6]

Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief seeking an order prohibiting the Kings County Welfare Department from

attaching his wages or income and requiring the Department to correct his credit report relating

to an alleged unconfirmed debt which is the subject of this section 1983 action in which plaintiff

alleges he was wrongfully charged with the crime of welfare fraud.

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.” 

Case 1:05-cv-00075-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 08/01/05 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

2

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.

“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). In a separate order issued concurrently with this Findings and

Recommendations, the court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint, with leave to amend, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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. Moreover, plaintiff seeks an injunction

against the Kings County Welfare Department, which is not a party to this action. The court is

unable to issue any order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 17, 2005, be denied. 

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). Within

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00075-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 08/01/05 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

3

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: July 29, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00075-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 08/01/05 Page 3 of 3