Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00697/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00697-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

EMARD, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 697 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS PREMATURE (Doc.

2.) 

 Ray Medina(“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on June 5, 2006. Also on June 5, 2006,

Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Order to Show Cause for A Preliminary Injunction and

Temporary Restraining Order.” The Court construes this as a Motion for a Preliminary

Injunction and Restraining Order. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00697-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2
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

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). At this time, however, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint

to determine whether it states a cognizable claim for relief on which he may proceed. 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. Thus, 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 the Defendants are served with process in this

case will also be denied as premature. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court CONSTRUES the “Order to Show Cause . . .” as a

Motion for Injunctive Relief and further RECOMMENDS that Motion for Preliminary Injunctive

relief, filed on June 5, 2006, be denied, without prejudice, as premature. 

These Findings and Recommendations are 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

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: June 16, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00697-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2