Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05645/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05645-15/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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES KEEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMY NOBLE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04-5645 AWI WMW P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

(Document #55)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a federal inmate and is proceeding in this action against United States Bureau

of Prisons (“BOP”) officials for conduct that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the United

States Penitentiary at Atwater (“Atwater”) during 2002 and 2003. Plaintiff claims that

Defendants violated the First Amendment, the Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

(“RLUIPA”), and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Plaintiff also claims that

Defendants’ conduct violated his equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment and the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).

On October 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s

motion concerns BOP employees’ actions that Plaintiff contends violated his right of access to

the courts. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that in 2006, Plaintiff was housed at the United States

Penitentiary at Lompoc (“Lompoc”). In July, Plaintiff was placed in Administrative

Confinement because of a criminal case in Los Angeles concerning the Aryan Brotherhood. 

While Plaintiff was in Administrative Confinement, the Asatru Community Locker at Lompoc

was searched by Chaplain Frank Tinajero. Pages from the BOP Technical Reference Manual

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 66 Filed 09/18/07 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

concerning Asatru, which Defendants had provided as an exhibit to a motion in this action, were

confiscated. Chaplain Tinajero and other BOP officials refused to return this document because

inmates are not allowed to have copies of this manual. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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 (9 Cir. 1987). Under either th

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.

DISCUSSION

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the

threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or

controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 1665 (1983) (citations omitted); 

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9 Cir. 2006). In addition, any award of th

equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in relevant part,

“Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further

than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. 

The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief

is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C.

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 66 Filed 09/18/07 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

§ 3626(a)(1)(A). 

There is an actual case or controversy before this court with respect to Defendants’

actions in 2002 and 2003 at Atwater when they denied Plaintiff personal possession of

runestones and a hof. There is also an actual a case or controversy concerning Defendants’

refusal to change BOP policy to allow personal possession of runestones. However, the issue in

the pending motion for a preliminary injunction concerns actions that Plaintiff believes interfered

with his First Amendment right to access the courts in 2006 at Lompoc. Because the complaint

in this case does not contain allegations raising issues similar to those presented in the instant

motion, there is no controversy present with respect to such issues and the court cannot address

either the likelihood of success on the merits or whether there are serious questions going to the

merits of Plaintiff’s claims. 

In addition, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction 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 (9 Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). The court is unable to issue any order against

th

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Neither Chaplain Tinajero nor other BOP officials who

seized the document are Defendants to this action. Thus, this court cannot order them to return

the document. As Plaintiff’s motion seeks to have the court order non-defendants to return a

document and such an order will not redress an injury not at issue in this action, Plaintiff’s

motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 66 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 3