Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

HAROLD WALKER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et )

al., )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:04-cv-6329-REC-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF (DOC. 36)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT

(DOC. 36)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner confined in Centinela State

Prison who is proceeding pro se with an action concerning alleged

civil right violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter

has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed on

January 25, 2006, for a court order requiring that he be given

access to the court and to the law library, and for an extension

of time to file a reply to Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment. The Court interprets this motion as

a request for injunctive relief in addition to a request for an

extension of time.

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on December

27, 2005. Defendant opposed the motion on January 12, 2006;

further, on January 13, 2006, Defendant filed a motion for

summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of

issues. On February 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a reply to

Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff motion (entitled opposition

to Defendant’s opposition) as well as opposition to Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s filings included a

separate statement of undisputed facts, a memorandum, and

exhibits.

II. Request for an Extension of Time

Plaintiff’s present request for an extension of time, signed

by Plaintiff on January 18, 2006, does not advert to Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment. It is possible that Plaintiff was

not aware of Defendant’s motion when he filed the request. 

However, because Plaintiff has filed his reply as well as

opposition to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time IS DENIED as moot.

III. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff states (not under penalty of perjury) that he has

been denied access to the law library and that he has not been

able to reply in a timely manner in the past, and is not able

presently to do so. He states generally that he has been denied

access to the Court. 

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 5
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

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 demonstrate a fair chance of success of the

merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

With respect to law library access, a preliminary injunction

does not serve the purpose of ensuring that a plaintiff is able

to litigate this action effectively or efficiently. A federal

court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited

jurisdiction, as a threshold and preliminary matter the court

must have before it for consideration a “case” or “controversy.” 

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). If the Court does not

have a “case” or “controversy” before it, it has no power to hear

the matter in question. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F. 2d 1159,

1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). This action is proceeding against

defendant on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants, police officers

and the Fresno City Police Department, used excessive force in

arresting Plaintiff in July 2004, falsely accused Plaintiff of

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 5
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

 To the extent that prison officials are violating plaintiff’s right of access to the courts, plaintiff is not

precluded from raising a claim in a new action. However, a preliminary injunction may not be issued in this case to

remedy that claim. 

4

criminal conduct, and failed to obtain medical attention for some

of the injuries that Plaintiff allegedly suffered at their hands.

The issuance of the order sought by Plaintiff in his motion would

not remedy the claim alleged in this action. Accordingly, the

Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders.

1

Further, the Court notes that its docket, which documents

Plaintiff’s having opposed the Defendant’s summary judgment

motion and having replied to Defendant’s opposition to

Plaintiff’s own motion, reflects that Plaintiff has not been

denied access to the Court with respect to the pending motions

for summary judgment; further, Plaintiff has filed responses

which the Court will consider to be timely under the

circumstances.

IV. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed

January 25, 2006, 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

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 02/08/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

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 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 38 Filed 02/08/06 Page 5 of 5