Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05092/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05092-8/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

TREVOR JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HENSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5092-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE

DENIED

(Doc. 44)

Plaintiff Trevor Johnson (“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 is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended complaint filed April 16, 2004, against defendants Henson, Aguilar, Arline, and

Adams for depriving him of his property without due process of law. On September 14, 2005,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order mandating access to the law library for five hours per

week.

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

Case 1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO Document 50 Filed 12/05/05 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

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 is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited jurisdiction, as a

threshold and preliminary matter the court must have before it for consideration a “case” or

“controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). 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). This action is proceeding against defendants for depriving

plaintiff of his quarterly package without due process of law. The issuance of an order mandating

law library access would not remedy the claim alleged in this action. Accordingly, the court lacks

jurisdiction to issue such an order.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction mandating access to his legal property, filed September 14, 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 thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: December 2, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO Document 50 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2