Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595-24/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LOPEZ, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5595 DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 

GERALDA, et al., [Doc. 114]

Defendants.

 /

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. This action for damages is proceeding on

plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 29, 2004, against defendant Yale for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs in withholding prescribed soft shoes sent during plaintiff’s

transfer from High Desert State Prison (HDSP) to Corcoran State Prison (CSP) on February 15, 2001.

This matter is set for trial before the undersigned on August 21, 2007.

A. Background

 On November 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a second motion for preliminary injunctive relief wherein

he requests that the Court order requiring the Warden of Corcoran State Prison to provide him his

prescribed shoes and to maintain hisshoe size to ensure he is able to exchange shoes every 4-6 months.

After ordered to do so, defendant filed an opposition to the motion on March 26, 2007. Plaintiff filed

a reply on April 9, 2007. 

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 152 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

In their opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff has not met his burden because he has not

presented any evidence that he is in imminent danger of irreparable harm. Defendants also submit

custody records which indicate that in December 2006, prison staff responded to a request by Plaintiff

for EEE footwear. Defendants’ Exhibit “A.” While plaintiff sought EEE footwear, he was offered and

accepted EEEE footwear on December 8, 2006. Defendants argue the receipt of the EEEE footwear

resolved plaintiff’s grievance and removes any urgency to this issue. 

In his reply, plaintiff argues that receipt of the EEEE footwear in December 2006 did not resolve

his grievance. He contends the shoes are falling apart and his toes stick out where the boot and sole have

separated. Plaintiff argues that in any event, the shoes were only provided in response to his grievance

and the filing of the present request for injunctive relief. Plaintiff argues the Court should not condone

the practice of only providing necessities to prisoners in response to legal action. 

B. Discussion

1. Standard for Preliminary Injunctive Relief

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 demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits,

or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

2. Jurisdiction

The claims in this action arise from the alleged failure of defendant Yale to provide plaintiff with

“medically prescribed shoes” upon his transfer to Corcoran in February 2001. As set forth by the court

in a Findings and Recommendations filed on January 23, 2007, “This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

complaint, filed January 29, 2004 against defendant Yale for violating his civil rights. Plaintiff alleges

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 152 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

defendant Yale was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in withholding medically

prescribed soft shoes sent with him during his transfer from high Desert State Prison to Corcoran State

Prison on February 15, 2001.” The court found there were genuine issues of material fact over whether

defendant Yale violated plaintiff’s civil rights under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s claims to not

concern an appeal for special footwearfiled in 2006 or the denial thereof. Indeed, plaintiff contends that

at various times since the filing of this action, he has had the required footwear. The present request for

injunctive relief concerns requests made in 2006 to “Sergeant Jmoore, Captain Hernandez, Warden

Adams, Corcoran Laundry Supervisor Martinez, and Material and Store Services employee Giles.”

These individuals are not parties to this action and plaintiff’s allegations regarding their refusal to

provide “shoe replacement because my shoes are falling apart and have holes” do not form the basis of

any claims in this action. 

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). “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 (9th

Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).

In this instance, the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in February and March

2001, and related to defendant Yale’s alleged refusal to provide plaintiff his medically prescribed shoes.

 The issues raised by plaintiff in his motions, issues which occurred in 2006 and may be ongoing, are

not being litigated in this action, and the preliminary injunction sought by plaintiff would not remedy

the claims in this action. Indeed, the issues raised in plaintiff’s motion were apparently resolved by his

acceptance of shoes in December 2006 despite the fact that plaintiff claims in his reply that those shoes

are now also worn out. Moreover, plaintiff seeks an injunction against individuals who are not parties

to this action. The court therefore has no jurisdiction to issue the order sought.

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 152 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

3. Irreparable Harm

Even if the Court had jurisdiction, “plaintiff 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.” 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). 

There is an actual case or controversy before this court with respect to plaintiff’s section 1983

claim for money damages arising out of defendant’s alleged past conduct in refusing to issue plaintiff

his medically prescribed shoes. However, equitable remedies are “unavailable absent a showing of

irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or

immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again - a ‘likelihood of substantial and immediate

irreparable injury.’” Lyons at 111, 1670 (quoting O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 502, 94 S.Ct. at 679). In this

instance, it is the past conduct of defendant which gives rise to plaintiff’s claim for relief, and should

plaintiff prevail, plaintiff’s injury will not go unrecompensed because plaintiff has an adequate

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 152 Filed 07/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

remedy at law. Id. Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief in this action for defendant’s past

conduct because there is no allegation, and no argument made by plaintiff in his opposition, that he

will be wronged again by this particular defendant. Further, ordering the prison to maintain

plaintiff’s special shoes in stock are issues outside the scope of equitable relief this court could order. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief should be dismissed and this action should proceed

as one for money damages only. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY DENIES plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief filed on November 13, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 152 Filed 07/23/07 Page 5 of 5