Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00025/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00025-0/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

TERRENCE L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R.W. MORROW, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 0025 REC SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION AND ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE (Doc. 12-1, 12-2.) 

 Terrence L. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The instant action was

filed on December 27, 2004, in the Sacramento Division of this District. The case was

transferred to this Court and received on January 4, 2005. 

On September 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Order to Show Cause and

Temporary Restraining Order.” The Court’s review of this document reveals that it is an “Order”

issued by Plaintiff directing the Defendants to Show Cause why a preliminary injunction should

not be issued to prevent Plaintiff’s legal property from being “denied, impeded, delayed, and

meting out.” Plaintiff then cites to the California Code of Regulations pertaining to the

maximum allowable of legal 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.

Case 1:05-cv-00025-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 10/03/05 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

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. “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 this case, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint . Thus, it is unclear whether

the Complaint states a claim against the named Defendants. Unless and until such a finding

occurs by the Court, no Defendant will be required to Answer to the allegations raised in the

Complaint. 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. At this juncture, the

Motion for Preliminary Injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff is cautioned to any further

Motions for Preliminary Injunctive relief that are filed before Defendants are served with process

in this case will be denied as premature. 

Further, even if, at a future time, the Court finds Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for

relief and this action proceeds forward, the court cannot issue orders that do not remedy the

claims alleged in this action. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to orders that, rather than serving to

remedy the claims in this action, serve to allow Plaintiff to litigate this action more effectively. 

Finally, Plaintiff is not a Court of law and my not issue Orders to Show Cause or

Preliminary Injunctions. The instant pleading was construed as a Motion by the Clerk of Court,

however, it is noted that Plaintiff was simply issuing his own Order to Show Cause and

Preliminary Injunction. Only a Court of Law may issue such Orders. 

Case 1:05-cv-00025-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 10/03/05 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

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Order to Show Cause be

DENIED and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED as premature. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action 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 THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00025-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 3