Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06028/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06028-4/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

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-6028-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY

WITH COURT’S ORDER OF MARCH 30,

2006, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Docs. 17 and 19)

Plaintiff Thomas A.Hightower (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 18, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking a court order mandating the release of his legal property. In accordance with the

Court’s standard practice, the motion is construed as one seeking a preliminary injunction.

“[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 Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935,

937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of

Case 1:04-cv-06028-AWI-SMS Document 20 Filed 05/25/06 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

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, plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims

for relief in this action. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was ordered to file an

amended complaint. Thus, at this time, plaintiff is not entitled to any type of preliminary injunction

as the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue any such orders.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive

relief, filed April 18, 2006, is DENIED, and plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service

of this order to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s order of March 30, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06028-AWI-SMS Document 20 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2