Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00631/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00631-3/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. MARTINEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

(Docs. 12, 13.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Brady K. Armstrong ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

April 20, 2012. (Doc. 1.) 

Now pending are Plaintiff=s motions for preliminary injunction and temporary 

restraining order, filed on July 5, 2013 and July 10, 2013. (Docs. 12, 13.)

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

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 

Ademonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable 

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 14 Filed 11/21/13 Page 1 of 3
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

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 Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an 

injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a 

bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust 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. Thus, A[a] federal 

court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 

before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 

1985). 

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks court orders prohibiting prison officials from retaliating against him by

submitting fabricated serious rules violation reports, denying him second medical opinions by 

off-site doctors, communicating with all other CDCR state employees, poisoning Plaintiff’s 

food, assaulting him, and interfering with his legal copywork. Plaintiff also seeks court orders 

directing prison officials to return his personal property, release him from the SHU, and 

transfer him to another facility. 

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 

in Corcoran, California. The events at issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint allegedly occurred at 

Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California in 2009 when Plaintiff was incarcerated 

there. Therefore, the court orders requested by Plaintiff would not remedy any of the claims 

upon which this action proceeds. Plaintiff requests court orders protecting him from present 

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 14 Filed 11/21/13 Page 2 of 3
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

and future actions by defendants. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims 

upon which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by 

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motions must be denied. 

Moreover, A[A] federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it has personal 

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to 

determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration 

Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because none of the defendants 

have appeared in this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order prohibiting

any of them from acting against Plaintiff.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s motions

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 5, 2013 and July 10, 2013, be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are 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 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such a 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: November 20, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 14 Filed 11/21/13 Page 3 of 3