Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01419/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01419-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

DENIS K. ROTROFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ROBINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01419-LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER RE

PHOTOCOPYING AND MAIL POLICIES

AND COALINGA STATE PRISON

(Doc. 22)

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 8, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order

pertaining to photocopying and mail costs for indigent litigants. Plaintiff contends the policies

regarding photocopying and mailing at Coalinga State Prison are violative of his constitutional right

to access to the court system. 

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

demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the

Case 1:06-cv-01419-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 02/12/08 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

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a fair chance of success ofthe merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. Id. A preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of

ensuring that plaintiff is able to litigate this action effectively or efficiently. The issuance of the

order sought by plaintiff in his motion would not remedy any of the claims alleged in this action.

Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order.

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

court order regarding the photocopying and mail service at Coalinga State Prison, filed February 8,

2008, 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, 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: February 12, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01419-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2