Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00109-4/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00109-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AS 

MOOT

(Doc. 18.)

I. BACKGROUND

Nicholas Christopher Pappas (“Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on January 27, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made 

an appearance. (Doc. 6.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the 

Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case 

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 4
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

This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original Complaint against defendant 

Correctional Officer (C/O) Lopez (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1). On October 16, 2014, the court issued an order directing the 

United States Marshal to serve process upon Defendant. (Doc. 15.) To date, there is no 

evidence on the court’s record that Defendant has been served, and Defendant has not appeared 

in this action. (Court Record.)

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed motion for preliminary injunctive relief and for 

leave to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 18.)

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AA preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@ 

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation 

omitted). AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public 

interest.@ Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear 

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary 

matter, it 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). If the 

Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter 

in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '

3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the 

Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of 

 

1 On September 29, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants 

from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 12.)

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 4
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

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

Federal right.@

Plaintiff requests a court order for Warden K. Holland to search certain officers’ work 

files for malicious behavior, and to have the officers removed from their duties; for Warden K. 

Holland to undergo a psychological evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder and take anger 

management training; for Warden K. Holland to install video recording devices in each section 

of the prison; and for Plaintiff to be transferred to another facility. 

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because such relief would not remedy any of the 

claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order granting the 

relief sought by Plaintiff, because the Court does not have such a case or controversy before it 

in this action. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 

1985); 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). Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action arises from an incident 

of excessive force by defendant C/O Lopez which allegedly occurred in September 2013. 

Plaintiff now requests a court order requiring future action. Because the court order sought by 

Plaintiff for future action would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds, 

the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.

III. LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a)

Plaintiff requests leave to amend the Complaint to add new defendants and claims to 

this action. Plaintiff’s motion is moot because he was advised by the court’s order on 

December 5, 2014, that he has leave to amend the Complaint at this stage of the proceedings, if 

he so wishes. The court’s order advised Plaintiff that if he wishes to amend the Complaint, he 

must file a First Amended Complaint which is complete in itself without reference to the prior 

Complaint. Plaintiff should refer to the court’s December 5, 2014 order for instruction.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED; and

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 12/11/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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’s motion for leave to amend the Complaint is DISREGARDED as 

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 12/11/14 Page 4 of 4