Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01823/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01823-0/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 The fee for this action has not yet been resolved by the Court. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTIST L. SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06-1823-OWW-LJO-P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION 

(Doc.2.) 

 Plaintiff Artist L. Sanders (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 13, 2006. That same day, Plaintiff filed a

Motion for Preliminary Injunction or restraining order preventing the Defendants from using an

irrigation process which Plaintiff alleges is contaminated and is spreading the Hepatitis Virus.

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted). 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 1:06-cv-01823-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 01/08/07 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

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). 

At this juncture, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether it

can proceed. The Court is required to screen the complaints to ensure that it states a cognizable

claim for relief. Thus, at this time, Plaintiff is not entitled to any type of preliminary injunction,

as the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue any such orders. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed May 1, 2006, 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 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: January 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01823-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2