Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01399/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01399-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD THOMAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1399 MCE DAD P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint seeking relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for an emergency preliminary

injunction in which he seeks an order requiring defendants to house him in a single cell, return

his personal property and transfer him to the California Medical Facility (CMF). 

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. See University of Texas v.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a moving party

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). See also Coalition

Case 2:07-cv-01399-AK Document 19 Filed 03/10/08 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

 Plaintiff may file another motion for preliminary injunctive relief if appropriate. 1

Plaintiff is also cautioned that if he moves for preliminary injunctive relief before any defendants

are served with process in this case, such a motion will be denied as premature. In addition,

plaintiff is advised that it is well-established that inmates do not have a constitutional right to be

incarcerated at a particular correctional facility or in a particular cell or unit within a facility. See

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir.

1985). 

2

for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two

points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Arcamuzi, 819 F.2d at

937; Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. In the absence of a significant showing of possible

irreparable harm, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

Moreover, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the

merits.” Arcamuzi, 819 F.2d at 937. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair

chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id. 

Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court

finds that his complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and

the named defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. See Zepeda v. United

States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may 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.”) The court has

recently issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and granting him leave to amend. The

court has not authorized service of the complaint. Accordingly, at this juncture, plaintiff’s

motion for preliminary injunctive relief is premature.

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s December 12,

2007 motion for an emergency preliminary injunction be denied without prejudice.

Case 2:07-cv-01399-AK Document 19 Filed 03/10/08 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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 7, 2008.

DAD:9

thom1399.48

Case 2:07-cv-01399-AK Document 19 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3