Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00998/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00998-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WENDELL WALTER JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

T. BYERS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:11-cv-00998-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 7.) 

I. BACKGROUND

Wendell Walter Johnson (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

commencing this action on June 6, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On June 24, 2011, Plaintiff consented to the

jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, and no other party has appeared in this action. 

(Doc. 8.) On June 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which is now

before the Court. (Doc. 7.)

II. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 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.,

1

Case 1:11-cv-00998-GSA Document 14 Filed 07/07/11 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

454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective

relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which

requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] 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.”

In this action, the Court lacks jurisdiction as this stage of the proceedings to grant the relief

Plaintiff requests. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this action or submitted an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. On June 23, 2011, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to either

pay the filing fee or submit an application within thirty days. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff has not yet

responded to the Court’s order. After Plaintiff has paid the filing fee or has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to conduct a screening to determine if Plaintiff states

any cognizable claims. None of the defendants have yet appeared in this action. Therefore, at this

stage of the proceedings, the court does not yet have before it an actual case or controversy, nor does

the court have jurisdiction over any of the defendants in this action. As a result, the Court has no

jurisdiction at this time to award any preliminary injunctive relief. “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.” Zepeda v. United

States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Therefore, a

request for preliminary injunctive relief is premature, and Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction at this juncture to grant

preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on June 23, 2011, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 7, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-00998-GSA Document 14 Filed 07/07/11 Page 2 of 2