Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00709/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00709-2/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 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

VAZQUEZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-709 AWI NEW (DLB) P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (Docs. 19, 21.) 

 Harold Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

1

Plaintiff initiated this action on June 2, 2005, alleging an Eighth Amendment medical

care claim. On November 21, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis. On February 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunction and Temporary

Restraining Order. Plaintiff states that On February 6, 2007, he was handcuffed and taken out of

his cell. Plaintiff states that he was threatened that he would be put in administrative segregation

if he filed an inmate appeal. Plaintiff states that his rights were violated. On February 16, 2007,

Plaintiff submitted a second Motion for Emergency Injunction and Restraining Order on the

same basis. 

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

Case 1:05-cv-00709-OWW -GSA Document 25 Filed 02/21/07 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

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted). 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 “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.

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). 

At this juncture, Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims for relief in this action. 

The Court is required to screen the complaints to ensure that it states a cognizable claim for

relief. Thus, at this time, Plaintiff is not entitled to any type of preliminary injunction, as the

Court lacks jurisdiction to issue any such orders. Plaintiff is also informed that the filing of

duplicative motions is improper. Should Plaintiff continue to file such Motions or Motions

wherein he has already been informed are premature, the Court will strike such motions from the

record. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motions for Temporary Restraining

Orders be DENIED.

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

Case 1:05-cv-00709-OWW -GSA Document 25 Filed 02/21/07 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

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

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00709-OWW -GSA Document 25 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 3