Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01250-3/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

JOHNNY EARL EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01250-OWW-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Johnny Earl Evans (“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 March 13, 2007, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from threatening him, retaliating

against him, and locking him in his cell without access to the law library. 

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 ofthe 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 ofirreparable 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

///

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 17 Filed 03/16/07 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

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

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); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. Id. 

In this instance, there is not yet an actual case or controversy before the court. On March 8,

2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any

claims upon which relief may be granted. Thus, at this juncture, the court has no jurisdiction to issue

the order sought by plaintiff. Further, in no event may the court issue an order that would not

remedy a claim in this action. The claims in this action arise from the issuance of a Rules Violation

Report in 2005, and plaintiff is not entitled, in this action, to an order directed at remedying

plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement, which plaintiff alleges are the result of the filing of this

action. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed March 13, 2007, 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 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 17 Filed 03/16/07 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

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: March 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 17 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 3