Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01289/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01289-2/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

CHRISTOPHER DUPREE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HICKMAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1289 REC SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF (Doc. 10.) 

 Christopher DuPree (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 12, 2005. On December 8, 2005, the Court

granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On December 23, 2005, Plaintiff

filed a pleading titled “Request for Permanent Injunction.” Plaintiff complains in this document

that his access to the Court’s is being impeded by prison officials who have confiscated his legal

materials and have also failed to process his trust account statements with respect to his

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In addition, Plaintiff contends that he has no access

to a law library, and that prison officials have retaliated against him by transferring him to

another institution. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a Court Order requiring the institution

to grant him unlimited access to the law library, a transfer to a disability placement program,

single cell status, return of his property and any other relief the Court deems appropriate. 

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.

Case 1:05-cv-01289-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 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

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

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

With respect to law library access, a preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of

ensuring that Plaintiff is able to litigate this action effectively or efficiently. While inmates have

a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts, this right is merely the right to bring to

court a grievance the inmate wishes to present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas

petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). The State is not

required to enable the inmate to discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in court. Id. 

Further, as stated above, 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). The issuance of the orders sought

by Plaintiff in his motions would not remedy any of the claims alleged in this action. 

Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s vague, generalized allegations of retaliation and harassment, it

is not the purpose of a preliminary injunction to prevent such speculative behavior. Accordingly,

this form of injunctive relief is not available. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). 

With regard to Plaintiff’s request for transfers, the Court again is not authorized to order

that he be housed in a particular facility. As in the above instances, the court must have before it

a case or controversy to hear the matter in question. Plaintiff’s request for housing in a particular

facility do touch the basis of his claims for relief in the action. However, as the Court has yet to

Case 1:05-cv-01289-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 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

determine whether the action states a claim for relief, it cannot consider Plaintiff’s request for

injunctive relief. Even had the Court made such a determination, prisoners have no

constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.

215, 224, 96 S.Ct. 2532 (1976). Thus, such allegation would fails to state a federal claim for

relief thereby requiring dismissal. 

Finally, as stated above, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was granted

on December 8, 2005. A review of the Court Order indicates that the Court received whatever

documentation was necessary to review and grant the request. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations

concerning the In Forma Pauperis application are moot. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Injunctive Relief be

DENIED.

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01289-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 3