Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00275-0/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

TRACYE WASHINGTON, 

Plaintiff,

 

vs.

A. AGUIRRE, et al., 

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:08-cv-00275-OWW-SMS-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

(Doc. 6)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

(30) DAYS

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Tracye Washington (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint on February 27, 2008.

(Doc. 1.) On February March 25, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc.

6.)

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Legal Standard

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

so heavily favorsthe 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

Case 1:08-cv-00275-GBC Document 11 Filed 04/16/08 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

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.

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. 

B. Discussion

In the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiff requests a court order enjoining

defendants from retaliating against him for filing and litigating this civil action, and enjoining defendants

from violating the written double-celling policy. This action is proceeding against defendants for failing

to protect plaintiff from harm, for retaliating against him for filing other complaints against correctional

staff, for having him assaulted for participating in a documentary, and for denying him adequate medical

treatment. Because an order enjoining defendants from retaliating against him for filing this civil action,

and from violating the double-celling policy now would not remedy any of the claims upon which this

action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff. Therefore, the court

finds that plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed February 25, 2008, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendation 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

Case 1:08-cv-00275-GBC Document 11 Filed 04/16/08 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

after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, plaintiff may file written objections with

the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation.” 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: April 16, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00275-GBC Document 11 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 3