Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00070-1/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

ARVIN B. CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. GRICEWICH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE

DENIED AS PREMATURE

(Docs. 5-7) 

Plaintiff Arvin B. Carroll (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 16, 2007, plaintiff filed the complaint in this action

along with a motion seeking a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to cease retaliating against

him, and requiring defendants to protect his First Amendment right to redress and to meaningful

access to the courts. (Doc. 7.)

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

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

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 12 Filed 03/05/07 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

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the 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 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 filed this action on January 16, 2007. Plaintiff has not yet paid the filing fee in full

or filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, there is no case or controversy

currently pending before the court and the court has no jurisdiction to enter any orders against the

defendants named in the complaint. Further, assuming plaintiff either pays the filing fee in full or

is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court is required to screen plaintiff’s complaint for

sufficiency of the claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court has a large number of cases pending before

it and will screen plaintiff’s complaint in due course. 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, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff

may file another motion for preliminary injunctive relief at a later stage. Plaintiff is cautioned that

any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are filed before defendants are served with

process in this case will be denied as premature. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed January 16, 2007, be DENIED, without prejudice, as premature.

///

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 12 Filed 03/05/07 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

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: March 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00070-AWI-GSA Document 12 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3