Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00006-5/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

MICHAEL J. HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOES 1 THRU 5, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-0006-LJO-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Docs. 16, 22)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS 

Plaintiff Michael Hicks (“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 was filed on January

4, 2007. On February 25, 2008, and April 7, 2008, plaintiff filed motions seeking a court order

requiring the Warden at California State Prison - Sacramento, who is not a party to this action,

provide plaintiff with a complete photocopy of his central file without cost. (Docs. 16, 22). 

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 ofthe 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

Case 1:07-cv-00006-BLW -LMB Document 24 Filed 08/12/08 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

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.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “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 at issue in this action arose while plaintiff was incarcerated at the

California State Prison - Corcoran. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff is currently housed at California State PrisonSacramento and the orders sought are aimed at remedying his current conditions of confinement at

that prison, namely his access to his central file. The court does not have jurisdiction in this action

to issue the order sought, as the case or controversy requirement cannot be met in light of the fact

that the issues plaintiff seeks to remedy in his motions bear no relation to the past events at Corcoran

giving rise to this suit. The court does not and will not have jurisdiction in this action over prison

officials at California State Prison - Sacramento.

Therefore, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motions for a court order,

filed, February 25, 2008, and April 7, 2008 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 fifteen (15)

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

Case 1:07-cv-00006-BLW -LMB Document 24 Filed 08/12/08 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

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: August 11, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00006-BLW -LMB Document 24 Filed 08/12/08 Page 3 of 3