Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066-1/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

ALEX LAMONA MARTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. PADILLA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE

DENIED

(Docs. 3 and 4)

Plaintiff Alex Lamona Marti (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 12, 2007, plaintiff filed

the complaint in this action and a motion seeking a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to

cease retaliating against him, release him from segregation to a sensitive needs yard, cease reading

his legal documents, and cease obstructing his access to the courts.

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-00066-LJO-BAM 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 12, 2007. The court has a large number of cases pending

before it and will screen plaintiff’s complaint for sufficiency of the claims in due course. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. 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. 

In addition, “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek

v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Thus, a party seeking a preliminary injunction cannot prevail where, as here, the motion for relief

is unsupported by any evidence. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed January 12, 2007, be DENIED, without prejudice.

///

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM 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-00066-LJO-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3