Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00332-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY TURNER, CASE NO. CV-F-06-0332 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

vs. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[DOC 8]

HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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 July 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order

prohibiting civil harassment and retaliation. Plaintiff also requests a writ of habeas corpus releasing him

from custody or in the alternative, or order transferring him to Vacaville State Prison.

“[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). 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

Case 1:06-cv-00332-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 07/20/06 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

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 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 is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited jurisdiction, as a

threshold and preliminary matter the court must have before it for consideration a “case” or

“controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). If the court does not have a “case” or

“controversy” before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F. 2d

1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). At this juncture, plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims for relief

in this action. In a separate order issued concurrently with this Findings and Recommendations,

plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend. Thus, at this time, plaintiff is not entitled to

any type of preliminary injunction, as the court lacks jurisdiction to issue any such orders.

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed July 10, 2006, be DENIED, without 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: July 19, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00332-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2