Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01434/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01434-5/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERM

PERSONNEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01434-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 17)

ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED FILING

(Doc. 18)

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“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 May 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a

“Motion for Prospective and Permanent Injunctive Relief,” and a “Notice of Motion and Motion for

Injunctive Relief.” (Docs. 17, 18.) Plaintiff’s “Notice of Motion and Motion for Injunctive Relief”

is unsigned and shall be stricken from the record for that reason. Local Rule 7-131; Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(a).

“[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, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983) (citations omitted);

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). “Abstract injury is not enough.”

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 1665. “[P]laintiff must show that he has sustained or is

immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct

and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Case 1:06-cv-01434-LJO -LJO Document 21 Filed 07/05/07 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

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The key issue is whether the plaintiff is ‘likely to

suffer future injury.’” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126 (quoting Lyons at 105, 1667). When a government

agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal

affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state agency is involved, these considerations

are, in anything, strengthened because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128. “[A]ny

injunctive relief awarded must avoid unnecessary disruption to the state agency’s ‘normal course of

proceeding.’” Id. at 1128 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 669, 679

(1974)). 

In addition, any award of 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. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

On March 29, 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted, and on June 14, 2007, the Court granted

plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. Thus, at this

juncture there is no actual case or controversy pending before the Court. Further, until such time as

one or more defendants are served with process and make an appearance in this action, the Court has

no jurisdiction to issue any orders directed at defendants. Zepeda v. United States Immigration

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff’s motion for relief is premature and shall be

denied for that reason.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01434-LJO -LJO Document 21 Filed 07/05/07 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

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (document 17) is DENIED

as premature, and plaintiff’s notice of motion and motion (document 18) is STRICKEN for lack of

signature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01434-LJO -LJO Document 21 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 3