Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00128/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00128-8/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

ANTHONY JOSEPH SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANCLIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00128-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FREEZING

ASSETS AND MANDATING DEFENDANT

REMAIN EMPLOYED

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff Anthony Joseph Sanchez (“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 July 30, 2007, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking a court order freezing defendant Stancliff’s assets and requiring defendant

Stancliff to remain employed with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department. The Court construes

plaintiff’s motion as one seeking preliminary injunctive relief.

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold

requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.”

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983) (citations omitted);

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). “Abstract injury is not enough.”

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 1665. “[P]laintiff must show that he has sustained or is

immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct

and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The key issue is whether the plaintiff is ‘likely to

suffer future injury.’” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126 (quoting Lyons at 105, 1667). When a government

Case 1:07-cv-00128-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 10/10/07 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

agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal

affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state [or local] agency is involved, these

considerations are, in anything, strengthened because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at

1128. “[A]ny injunctive relief awarded must avoid unnecessary disruption to the . . . agency’s

‘normal course of proceeding.’” Id. at 1128 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94

S.Ct. 669, 679 (1974)). 

In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

Equitable remedies are “unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement

that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will

be wronged again - a ‘likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.’” Lyons at 111,

1670 (quoting O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 502, 94 S.Ct. at 679). In this instance, plaintiff has set forth no

legal authority or argument in support of his motion, and has made no showing that he is seeking

narrowly drawn relief to which he is entitled to due to the existence of irreparable injury. Because

plaintiff has not met his burden as the moving party, plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00128-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 2