Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05688-1/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

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-5688 OWW LJO P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 15) 

Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley (“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 May 12, 2005, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking a court inquiry into the handling of his mail. The court construes the motion

to be one for a preliminary injunction.

 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 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 18 Filed 06/15/05 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

1

 In a separate order, the court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended

complaint.

2

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). On October 26, 2004, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint,

with leave to amend, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). To date,

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.1 Thus, at this juncture there is no case or controversy

before the court. Because the order sought by plaintiff in his motion would not remedy a cognizable

claim alleged in this action, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order.

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed May 12, 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

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: June 14, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05688-SAB Document 18 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2