Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01768/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01768-3/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

CHARLES FORDJOUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01768-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 19)

Plaintiff Charles Fordjour (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion

seeking a preliminary injunction. 

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 Plaintiff “must demonstrate

a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if Plaintiff “shows

no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, Plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair

chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

///

Case 1:07-cv-01768-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/09/08 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

 Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on March 20, 2008. An order requiring Plaintiff 1

to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint is currently

outstanding.

2

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 addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

The claims in this action arise from events which occurred when Plaintiff was housed at

Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff is currently being housed at the Kings County Jail and seeks an order

1

directed at remedying current conditions of confinement at the jail. The Court has no jurisdiction

in this action over Kings County jail officials. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

injunction, filed June 30, 2008, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01768-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/09/08 Page 2 of 2