Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06658-7/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

RONALD ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

P.L. VAZQUEZ,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04-6658 REC DLB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER 

[Doc 48]

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 April 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary

restraining order seeking an order requiring him to be transferred back to Wasco State Prison

from Folsom State Prison where he states he was transferred on March 26, 2006. 

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

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 05/08/06 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

bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claims for denial of access to the court system

against defendants Woodford, Vazquez, Tinsley, Olson, Armendariz, Snyder, Eiland, Altnow and

McEwen and also against defendant Tinsley for retaliation. In his motion, plaintiff seeks a court

order mandating that he be transferred back to Wasco State Prison. 

The court is unable to issue any order against individuals who are not parties to a suit

pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969) The

California Department of Corrections is not a party to this suit, the court cannot order it to take

the actions sought by plaintiff in his motion. In addition, plaintiff’s amended complaint does not

contain a cause of action for similar permanent injunctive relief. Because the federal court is a

court of limited jurisdiction, as a threshold matter, 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).

For the foregoing reasons, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion

for temporary restraining order preliminary injunctive relief, filed January 30, 2003, 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

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 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: May 8, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 2