Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01275/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01275-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT GARCIA, CASE NO. CV-F-05-1275 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S

vs. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

MCGUINNES, et al.,

[Doc. 17 ]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On February 1, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requiring defendants to provide

plaintiff law library access at least two (2) hours per day.

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,

Case 1:05-cv-01275-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 02/06/06 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

2

or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

With respect to law library access, a preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of

ensuring that plaintiff is able to litigate this action effectively or efficiently. 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 the orders

sought by plaintiff in his motions would not remedy any of the claims alleged in this action.

Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed February 1, 2006, 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: February 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01275-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2