Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05942/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05942-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. JUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5942-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 70)

Plaintiff Lonnie Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court

order requiring prison officials to provide plaintiff with access to the law library for four hours per

week and access to legal books and resources. (Doc. 70.) 

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 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

///

Case 1:03-cv-05942-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 12/15/05 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

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). The issuance of an order concerning law library and legal material

access would not remedy any of the claims alleged in this action. Accordingly, the court lacks

jurisdiction to issue such an order.

To the extent that plaintiff believes he is being denied access to the courts, there are avenues

of relief available to plaintiff. However, plaintiff may not seek redress in this action on the basis that

his ability to litigate this action is being impeded. As plaintiff has been previously informed by this

court on more than one occasion, a preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of ensuring that

plaintiff is able to litigate this action effectively. (Docs. 17, 22, 37, 43.) 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed October 6, 2005, 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, 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: December 14, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05942-OWW -LJO Document 73 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2