Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01577/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01577-4/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

LEON H. "QIYAM" POGUE, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. )

 )

JAMES YATES, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01577-OWW-SMS-PC 

SECOND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN

TWENTY DAYS

Plaintiff, Leon H. "Qiyam" Pogue ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 11, 2007, plaintiff filed the complaint in this

action at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 23, 2007,

the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California and received at this court on October 29,

2007. Plaintiff seeks an immediate preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from forcing him to

remain at Pleasant Valley State Prison where there is no physical therapy for his recent surgery and

where he is suffering in pain and fear of retaliation by defendants for filing this complaint.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

so heavily favorsthe 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

Case 1:07-cv-01577-GMS Document 13 Filed 01/25/08 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

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.

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. 

In a separate order issued concurrently with this Second Findings and Recommendations, the

court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims upon which

relief may be granted under section 1983. Thus, at this point in time, there is no case or controversy

before the court, and the court has no jurisdiction to issue any preliminary injunctions. Until and unless

the court finds that plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 and the defendants

against whom the claims are stated have been served and made an appearance in this action, the court

will not have jurisdiction to issue any orders awarding the relief plaintiff seeks.

Further, plaintiff is cautioned that “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic

remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted)

(emphasis in original). Even if plaintiff’s complaint had been found to state claims for relief for

constitutionally deficient medical care, and one or more defendants had already appeared in this action,

plaintiff did not meet his burden as the moving party and would not be entitled to the relief he seeks. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed as part of the complaint on October 11, 2007, be DENIED.

Case 1:07-cv-01577-GMS Document 13 Filed 01/25/08 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

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 twenty (20) 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: January 24, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01577-GMS Document 13 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3