Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06581/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06581-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

JAMEEL R. COLES, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DAVID L. RUNNELS, )

)

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-06581-AWI-TAG-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #23)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. #11)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. #15)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

OBJECTIONS (Doc. #25)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 26, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for default judgment be

denied. These Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that

any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. On May

3, 3005, Petitioner filed a motion for objections. On May 12, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation are supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis.

Petitioner contends in his objections, as he did in his motion, that he needs additional access

Case 1:04-cv-06581-AWI -JMD Document 30 Filed 02/15/06 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

to the law library to file an adequate traverse. Petitioner's constitional right to law library access

extends only through the pleading stage, and Petitioner has not right to successfully litigate the

matter through resolution. See Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995). In addition,

because the federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must have before it a case or

controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). Absent such a case or controversy, the court

has no power to hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). The

petition does not concern allegations regarding law library access. “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). "[T]o prevail on

a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship between the

injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.” Lebron v. Armstrong,

289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003). Preliminary injunctive relief is designed to preserve the

status quo regarding the substance of the case; it is not available for the purpose of ensuring that

Plaintiff can effectively or efficiently litigate his case. As Plaintiff’s motion seeks to redress an

injury unrelated to the underlying action, the preliminary injunction must be denied.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed April 26, 2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED;

3. Petitioner's motion for default judgment is DENIED; and

4. Petitioner's motion of objection is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06581-AWI -JMD Document 30 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2