Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00324/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00324-1/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

 Plaintiff also asks for money damages. Money damages is a form of relief separate and distinct from

equitable relief, and cannot be sought via a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Further, there is no provision

for the “premature” award of damages prior to adjudication of the suit. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAGI MUKATIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HESSELTINE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00324-AWI-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 8)

Plaintiff Sagi Mukatin (“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 June 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting physical, mental, and

emotional abuse; threats of bodily harm; property damage and destruction; confidentiality breaches

with respect to mail; and denial of medical treatment.1 

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

Case 1:05-cv-00324-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/21/05 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

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.

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited jurisdiction, as a

threshold and preliminary matter the court 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). “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). 

In an order issued concurrently with this Findings and Recommendations, the court screened

plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and ordered plaintiff to either file an amended

complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claims. In the

order, the court found that the only cognizable claims set forth in the complaint are plaintiff’s

excessive force claim against defendants Clark, Del Vecchio, and Torres, and plaintiff’s mail theft

and access to the courts claims against defendants Hesseltine, Harris, Redding, Corley, Deathradge,

and Fisher. The cognizable claims stem from distinct incidents that occurred in the past rather than

ongoing violations. The issuance of the order sought by plaintiff in his motion would not remedy

any of these claims. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed June 7, 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

Case 1:05-cv-00324-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/21/05 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

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, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00324-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3