Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00196/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00196-2/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

DAVID CATALDO, CASE NO. CV-F-07-0196 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S

vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

JAMES YATES, et al.,

[Doc. 8]

Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE MAY 1, 2007

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting an immediate order

requiring Pleasant Valley State Prison to restore his release date. The Court construes this as a motion

for preliminary injunctive relief. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-00196-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 04/11/07 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

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 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). The Court has not yet screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff

is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his complaint

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants have been

served with the summons and complaint. At this juncture, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive

relief is premature. Plaintiff is cautioned to any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are

filed before defendants are served with process in this case will be denied as premature. 

In addition, plaintiff’s complaint concerns his claims that he has not been transported for his

followup medical appointments in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In his motion, plaintiff seeks

a court order that Pleasant Valley State Prison reinstate his release date. The court is unable to issue any

order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Plaintiff’s motion fails to link any alleged conduct or harm to a

party named in this action. Pleasant Valley State Prison is not a party to this suit. In addition, plaintiff’s

complaint does not contain a cause of action for similar permanent injunctive relief. 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).

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 5, 2007, be denied, without prejudice, as premature. 

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). On Or before May 1,

2007, 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

Case 1:07-cv-00196-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 04/11/07 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

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: April 10, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00196-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3