Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05814/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05814-1/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

JOHNNY GRAY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-5814 AWI SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Docs. 51 and 52)

Plaintiff Johnny Gray (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking a preliminary injunction mandating the appointment of an independent medical examiner

and medical treatment for radiation exposure and sickness; and prohibiting defendants from stalking,

harassing, threatening, punishing, or retaliating against plaintiff in any way for filing this action and

from transferring plaintiff to any other institution without his permission during the pendency of this

suit. (Doc. 51.) On March 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction

prohibiting defendants from stalking, harassing, threatening, punishing, or retaliating against plaintiff

in any way for filing this action and from transferring plaintiff to any other institution, except for

Atascadero State Hospital, during the pendency of this suit. (Doc. 52.) 

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)

Case 1:03-cv-05814-AWI -SMS Document 57 Filed 04/25/05 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

1

 At this juncture, plaintiff has not stated any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 

Plaintiff has been ordered to file a second amended complaint within thirty days curing the deficiencies in his first

amended complaint.

2

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.

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). Plaintiff’s claim in this action stems from alleged sexual assaults

against plaintiff while plaintiff was at North Kern State Prison in Delano in 2002. The issuance of

the orders sought by plaintiff in his motions would not remedy the claim alleged in this action.1

Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed March 17, 2005, and March 25, 2005, 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 

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-05814-AWI -SMS Document 57 Filed 04/25/05 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: April 25, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05814-AWI -SMS Document 57 Filed 04/25/05 Page 3 of 3