Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00182/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00182-8/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

STANLEY H. SOLVEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00182-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

(Docs. 20 and 27)

Plaintiff Stanley H. Solvey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court

order mandating that he be transferred from the reception center at California State Prison-Lancaster.

On July 8, 2008, Plaintiff filed a second motion seeking a court order mandating he be transferred

out of the reception center immediately. Plaintiff contends that he is not getting access to the law

library and his right of access to the courts is being violated. Plaintiff also contends that he is not

being provided with adequate exercise and is not being provided with the pain medication he was

previously prescribed.

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

Case 1:07-cv-00182-LJO-GSA Document 37 Filed 08/21/08 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

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 questionsserious 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). 

In this instance, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims arise from the exposure to Valley

Fever while at Pleasant Valley State Prison and the subsequent medical care provided to Plaintiff at

Pleasant Valley State Prison. (Docs. 11, 15, 16.) Plaintiff was released from custody following the

filing of this action and then arrested in March of this year, apparently on a parole violation. (Docs.

13, 18.) Plaintiff is now housed at California State Prison-Lancaster and the orders sought are aimed

at remedying his current conditions of confinement at that prison. The Court does not jurisdiction

in this action to issue the orders sought, as the case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light

of the fact that the issues Plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motions bear no relation to the past events

at Pleasant Valley State Prison.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00182-LJO-GSA Document 37 Filed 08/21/08 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed June 4, 2008, and July

8,2008, are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00182-LJO-GSA Document 37 Filed 08/21/08 Page 3 of 3