Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00503/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00503-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY AHART, CASE NO. CV-F-06-0503 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

vs. FOR SENTENCE MODIFICATION BE

DENIED

OBJECTIONS DUE JUNE 2, 2007

CDC, et al.,

[Doc. 22]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for sentence modification, filed April 27, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks an order modifying his sentence to four (4) years. The construes plaintiff’s motion as

seeking preliminary injunctive relief. As discussed below, a request for preliminary injunction is

premature at this stage of the proceedings and further, the Court is unable to grant the relief requested.

As plaintiff was advised, 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.

Case 1:06-cv-00503-LJO -DLB Document 24 Filed 05/08/07 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

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). 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, a motion for preliminary injunctive

relief is premature. 

Moreover, when a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ

of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir.

1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Further, when seeking damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or

sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state

tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of

a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim

for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. Thus, the Court is unable to grant the relief requested in this

proceeding. 

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

modification, filed on April 27, 2007, 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). Plaintiff may file written

objections with the court on or before June 2, 2007. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Case 1:06-cv-00503-LJO -DLB Document 24 Filed 05/08/07 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

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: May 8, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00503-LJO -DLB Document 24 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 3