Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06575/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06575-3/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

PATRICK L. RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. BRYANT, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:99-cv-06575-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

Patrick Richardson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Second Amended

Complaint, plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction to prohibit the defendants from harassing,

punishing, threatening, or retaliating in any way against the plaintiff for filing this lawsuit. 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

Case 1:99-cv-06575-OWW -GSA Document 89 Filed 12/18/07 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

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.

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. 

This action is proceeding against defendants for violation of plaintiff’s rights by

wrongfully detaining him in Administrative Segregation (“Ad-Seg”) and by denying him access

to the courts to litigate his petition for writ of habeas corpus. An order prohibiting the defendants

from harassing, punishing, threatening, or retaliating in any way against the plaintiff for filing the

instant lawsuit would not remedy the claim upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks

jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff. Therefore, the court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, submitted as part of the

Second Amended Complaint filed July 3, 2007, 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 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: December 17, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06575-OWW -GSA Document 89 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2