Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00856-19/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

KEITH BLACKWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00856-AWI-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 48) 

Plaintiff Keith Blackwell (“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 August 24, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking a court order mandating plaintiff be allowed access to the law library at North Kern

State Prison. The court, in accordance with its standard practice, construes the motion as one

seeking preliminary injunctive relief.

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

Case 1:05-cv-00856-AWI -SMS Document 62 Filed 12/14/06 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

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a fair chance of success ofthe merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id. “[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). 

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. 

In this instance, plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure

to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and plaintiff has not yet filed an amended

complaint. Until such time as plaintiff files an amended complaint and the court makes a

determination that plaintiff’s amended complaint contains cognizable claims for relief, there is no

actual case or controversy before the court and it is premature for plaintiff to move for preliminary

injunctive relief.

Further, even if plaintiff had filed an amended complaint and the court had made a

determination that the amended complaint stated some cognizable claims for relief, plaintiff would

not be entitled to the relief sought in his motion. The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is not

to assist plaintiff in litigating his action effectively or efficiently, and plaintiff is not entitled to an

order mandating that he be provided with access to the law library.

Finally, plaintiff is no longer housed at North Kern State Prison. When an inmate seeks

injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such

relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d

1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, any motion

for an order directed at North Kern State Prison personnel was rendered moot by plaintiff’s transfer.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00856-AWI -SMS Document 62 Filed 12/14/06 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

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed August 24, 2006, be DENIED, with prejudice.

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 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00856-AWI -SMS Document 62 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 3