Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARLENE SMITH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06066-REC-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 40)

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendant Earlene Smith (“defendant”)

for discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his sexual orientation, in violation of the Equal

Protection Clause. On March 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction

prohibiting defendant from obstructing his efforts to prepare for trial. Defendant did not file a

response.

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 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 58 Filed 05/31/06 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

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 preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of ensuring that plaintiff is able to

litigate this action effectively or efficiently. 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). This action is proceeding against

defendant for allegedly refusing to rehire plaintiff, in violation of his rights under the Equal

Protection Clause. The issuance of the order sought by plaintiff in his motion would not remedy the

claim alleged in this action. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order. 

For the foregoing reason, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed March 22, 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, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 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: May 30, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 58 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2