Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

HAROLD WALKER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et )

al., )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:04-cv-6329-REC-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF (DOC. 19)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner confined in Wasco State Prison 

who is proceeding pro se with an action concerning alleged civil

right violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has

been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. Pending before the

Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed on March 29, 2005, for a court

order requiring that he be given access to the law library, to

other legal materials, and to the Court. The Court interprets

this motion as a request for injunctive relief.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 29, 2004; the

case has been scheduled, and the first deadlines for discovery

are in February 2006. No motions or other matters requiring

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 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

immediate compliance are presently pending in this action.

Plaintiff states (not under penalty of perjury) that he was

denied access to the law library, unspecified legal materials,

and a scheduling conference. He states that he is indigent and

does not have the resources to make copies.

The Court is continuing to address the scheduling of this

case by separate order. 

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 bare minimum, the

plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the

merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

With respect to law library access, a preliminary injunction

does not serve the purpose of ensuring that a plaintiff is able

to litigate this action effectively or efficiently. A federal

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

jurisdiction, as a threshold and preliminary matter the court

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 04/25/05 Page 2 of 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

1

 To the extent that prison officials are violating plaintiff’s right of access to the courts, plaintiff is not

precluded from raising a claim in a new action. However, a preliminary injunction may not be issued in this case to

remedy that claim. 

3

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). This action is proceeding against

defendant on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants, police officers

and the Fresno City Police Department, used excessive force in

arresting Plaintiff in July 2004, falsely accused Plaintiff of

criminal conduct, and failed to obtain medical attention for some

of the injuries that Plaintiff allegedly suffered at their hands.

The issuance of the order sought by Plaintiff in his motion would

not remedy the claim alleged in this action. Accordingly, the

Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders.

1

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed March

29, 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 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,

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 04/25/05 Page 3 of 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

4

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 04/25/05 Page 4 of 4