Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01935/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01935-10/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

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

Plaintiff Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr. is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for federal protection pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff claims that he has been the subject of retaliation by prison staff at 

Corcoran State Prison as a result of the filing of the instant action. Plaintiff requests a court order 

directing that action not be taken against him because of the filing of the instant case. The Court 

construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction. 

I.

DISCUSSION

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

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (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 

LONNIE LEE POSLOF, Sr.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01935-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

FEDERAL PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 42 

U.S.C. § 1983

[ECF No. 30]

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 32 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may 

only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

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 L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian 

Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (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 caseor-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. 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.”

 On December 3, 2014, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that the instant 

action proceed on Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim against Defendant Beard and Does 1 through 10, and 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need be dismissed 

for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 29.) Injunctive relief may not be based on 

First Amendment retaliation, which appears nowhere in the complaint. A “request for injunctive relief 

by itself does not state a cause of action and is properly raised as a separate motion.” Mbaba v. 

Indymac Federal Bank F.S.B., 2010 WL 424363, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2010). “An injunction is a remedy, 

not a separate claim or cause of action. A pleading can ... request injunctive relief in connection with 

a substantive claim, but a separately pled claim or cause of action for injunctive relief is inappropriate. 

Jensen v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1201 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Because Plaintiff 

is not proceeding on a claim of retaliation, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by 

Plaintiff, and his motion must be denied. 

///

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 32 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 

protective order, filed December 8, 2014, be DENIED.

This Findings 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 these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 32 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 3