Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01219/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01219-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH

Plaintiff,

v.

KNOWLES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 1219 OWW SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF (Doc. 8.)

 James E. Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 7, 2006.

On October 16, 2006, Plaintiff moved for a injunctive relief to challenge “ongoing

conditions of confinement.” Plaintiff states that seeks injunctive relief to prevent the Defendants

from forcing him to eat unsanitary food, placing him in administrative segregation, threatening

him after he has been humiliated, denying him access to his legal materials, the law library and

forcing him to live in what he calls inhumane conditions. 

Case 1:06-cv-01219-SMS Document 11 Filed 10/24/06 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 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.

“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 this case, the Court has yet to screen the Complaint filed by Plaintiff to determine

whether it states a cognizable claim for relief. In addition, Plaintiff only recently filed his

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and the fee issue also remains unresolved. 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, the 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. 

Plaintiff is also informed that injunctive relief does not serve to prevent speculative injury

in the form of harassment. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Injunctive Relief, filed on October 16, 2006, be DENIED, as premature. 

Case 1:06-cv-01219-SMS Document 11 Filed 10/24/06 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

These Findings and Recommendations are 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 twenty

(20) 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, 951

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01219-SMS Document 11 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 3