Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00503/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00503-3/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

JEFFREY AHART, CASE NO. CV-F-06-0503 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

vs. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

OBJECTIONS DUE JUNE 2, 2007

CDC, et al.,

[Doc. 21]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed April 27, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks a transfer to Vacaville State Prison to receive medical care. Plaintiff’s motion appears

to be duplicative of his motion for transfer to a medical facility filed on April 19, 2007, which this court

recommended to deny on April 29, 2007.

As plaintiff was advised, 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.

Case 1:06-cv-00503-LJO -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/03/07 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

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.

“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). Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his

complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants

have been served with the summons and complaint. At this juncture, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff may file another motion for preliminary injunctive relief at a later

stage. Plaintiff is once again cautioned to any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief

that are filed before defendants are served with process in this case will be denied as premature.

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 27, 2007, be denied, without prejudice, as premature. 

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). Plaintiff may file written

objections with the court on or before June 2, 2007. 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: May 3, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00503-LJO -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2