Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01765/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01765-4/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

ANDREW LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v.

F. YAMAT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-01765-LJO-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Docs. 2, 11)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

Plaintiff Andrew Lopez (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on

December 5, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On December 5, 2007, and February 8, 2008, plaintiff filed motions

seeking preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 2, 11.) 

With regard to plaintiff’s motion filed December 5, 2007, plaintiff seeks a court order

directing defendants to turn on the heat in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) at Corcoran State

Prison. Plaintiff also seeks a court order requiring defendants to provide their contact information

to the Litigations Department at the prison, to assist plaintiff with service of process. 

With regard to plaintiff’s motion filed February 8, 2008, plaintiff seeks a court order

requiring the Warden of Corcoran State Prison to preserve documentary evidence under his control,

including 1) any and all documents pertaining to plaintiff; 2) any and all law library log books; 3)

any and all law library related documents; 4) housing unit log books; and 5) maintenance records.

Plaintiff also seeks a court order requiring the Warden to provide him with lists identifying all

Case 1:07-cv-01765-FRZ Document 15 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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

documents listed in 1) through 5), and the names and titles of all persons directly in charge of

particular areas at the prison. 

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

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 ofthe merits, or questions serious 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. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only]

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). 

In a separate order, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty

days. At this juncture, the court does not yet have before it an actual case or controversy.

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motions for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed December 5, 2007, and February 8, 2008, be DENIED.

///

Case 1:07-cv-01765-FRZ Document 15 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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: April 11, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01765-FRZ Document 15 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 3