Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01563-13/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

JIMMY MAGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01563-OWW-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER

MANDATING PLAINTIFF BE PROVIDED

WITH LAW LIBRARY ACCESS

(Doc. 48)

Plaintiff Jimmy Magee (“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 June 19, 2008, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking a court order requiring the law librarian to provide him with law library access.

(Doc. 48).

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

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 58 Filed 07/25/08 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

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. This action is proceeding against defendants Chavez

and Simpson for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Because an order

mandating law library access would not remedy the claim upon which this action proceeds, the court

lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by plaintiff. 

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

court order requiring the law librarian provide him with law library access, filed June 19, 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 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: July 24, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 58 Filed 07/25/08 Page 2 of 2