Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05215/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05215-19/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

DAVID BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-5215-LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 66)

OBJECTIONS DUE AUGUST 20, 2007

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint filed October 22, 2004 against defendants

in their officals capacties for violaiton of the Americans with Disabilties Act and on plaintiff’s state

law claims for medical malpractice. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights under the

ADA by failing to provide him with a wheelchair and failing to accommodate his disabilties in

institutional housing. Plaintiff also claims that defendants Viravathana, Friedman and Kim’s

treatment of his chronic pain constituted medical malpractice. On January 22, 2007, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking an order prohibiting his transfer out of the Protective Housing Unit, where he

alleges he is housed for “extreme security” concerns.

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 ofthe 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

Case 1:04-cv-05215-LJO -DLB Document 81 Filed 07/23/07 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

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 questionsserious 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. 

Plaintiff’s claims arise from alleged violations of the ADA based on the denial of a

wheelchair and his medical treatment. Because an order mandating that plaintiff remain in

Protective Housing would not remedy the claims upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks

jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff. Therefore, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS

that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed January 22, 2007, 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). On or before August

20, 2007, 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: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05215-LJO -DLB Document 81 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2