Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARLENE SMITH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06066-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 72)

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendant Earlene Smith (“defendant”)

for allegedly discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his sexual orientation, in violation of the

Equal Protection Clause. On July 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction

mandating that the Western Regional Counsel for the Bureau of Prisons place a Lesser Security

Management Variable against plaintiff’s allegedly false custody classification score. Defendant did

not file a response.

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 ofthe 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

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 85 Filed 08/23/06 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

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 questionsserious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

There is no good faith basis for the instant motion. As plaintiff has been previously notified,

federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. (Doc. 58.) 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), and 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). The only claim in this action is that defendant violated the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment when she allegedly refused to rehire plaintiff due to his

sexual orientation. The issuance of the ordersought by plaintiff in his motion would not remedy the

equal protection claim alleged in this action. The court does not have jurisdiction to issue the order

sought, and the court does not have jurisdiction in this action over the Bureau of Prisons or any

prison official other than defendant Smith. 

For the foregoing reason, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed July 31, 2006, be DENIED, with prejudice.

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, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

///

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 85 Filed 08/23/06 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: August 23, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 85 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 3