Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06513/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06513-0/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

ALONZO SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6513 OWW SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION (Docs. 10, 11.) 

Alonzo Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The instant action was filed on November 8, 2004. On January 7, 2005, this Court issued

Findings and Recommendations that the action be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted. The District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations

on February 18, 2005, and the case was dismissed. 

On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief in the closed

case. In his Motion, Plaintiff challenges the evidence used to find him guilty of a Rules violation

and forfeiture of credit. 

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to

Case 1:04-cv-06513-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 06/21/05 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

the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune,

Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also

Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent

two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. "Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a

significant showing of irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. Id.

Because the federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, as a threshold matter, the court

must have before it a case or controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). Absent such a

case or controversy, the court has no power to hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F.2d

1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). As noted above, the Court issued Findings and

Recommendations to terminate the action because the complaint did not state a claim for relief. 

The District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations and the action was dismissed. 

Thus, the action is closed and the Motion must be denied. 

In addition, the Court notes that the allegations raised in the Motion for Preliminary

Injunction are identical to those raised in the initial complaint and which the Court found did not

state a cognizable civil rights claim under Section 1983. The Findings and Recommendations

informed Plaintiff that the appropriate mechanism to raise such a claim was by way of a habeas

corpus petition. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be

DENIED as the action is closed. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

Case 1:04-cv-06513-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 06/21/05 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

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06513-OWW -SMS Document 13 Filed 06/21/05 Page 3 of 3