Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01386/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01386-3/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

EDWARD L. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et.al.

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-1386 REC DLB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

BE DENIED

[DOC 11]

Plaintiff is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief seeking medical care. Plaintiff alleges that he is being denied appropriate

medical care. 

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 1:05-cv-01386-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 01/19/06 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.

“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 a separate order issued concurrently with this Findings and

Recommendations, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff is not entitled to

preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his complaint contains

cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants have been

served with the summons and complaint. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 17, 2005, 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, 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: January 18, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01386-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2