Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01615/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01615-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN VLASICH, CASE NO. CV-F-05-1615 REC LJO P 

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

vs. FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AS PREMATURE

FISHBACK, et. al., (Doc. 5.) 

Defendants.

 /

Steven Vlasich (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 20, 2005. On January 12, 2006, Plaintiff filed a

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. 

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

Case 1:05-cv-01615-LJO -GSA Document 7 Filed 01/19/06 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

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 Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 

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 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 on January 12, 2005, be DENIED as premature. 

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 twenty (20)

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: January 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01615-LJO -GSA Document 7 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2