Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06658-14/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

RONALD ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-6658-LJO - DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION/TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

OBJECTIONS DUE BY SEPTEMBER 29, 2007

(Doc. 91)

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 August 15, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order

requiring prison officials provide him with his legal materials.

The purpose of a preliminaryinjunction 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

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questionsserious enough to require litigation.”

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 92 Filed 08/30/07 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

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. Plaintiff’s case is currently pending before the court.

However, a preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of ensuring that plaintiff is able to

litigate this action effectively or efficiently. The issuance of the order sought by plaintiff in his

motion would not remedy any of the claims alleged in this action. Accordingly, the court lacks

jurisdiction to issue such an order.

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

court order requiring prison officials provide him with his legal materials, filed August 15, 2007, 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). On or before

September 29, 2007, 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. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 29, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

cf0di0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 92 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2