Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00535/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00535-3/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

DAVID JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-0535-OWW DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 6)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action. Plaintiff, who is housed

Pleasant Valley State Prison, appears to claim that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities

Act have been violated. Defendant Yates removed this action from the Fresno County Superior

Court on May 3, 2006. On January 10, 2007, plaintiff filed an untitled documents in which he seeks

an order from the court preventing his transfer to another prison. The Court construes this as a

motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00535-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 08/30/07 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

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.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must

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., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “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). 

At this juncture, there is no case or controversy before the court. In an order issued January

17, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any

claims upon which relief may granted. Until and unless plaintiff is able to state a cognizable claim

for relief under federal law, there is no case or controversy before the court and plaintiff is not

entitled to any preliminary injunctive relief. In addition, plaintiff’s motions are utterly unsupported

with any evidence demonstrating “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, 819 F. 2d at 937. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed January 10, 2007, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10) 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).

Case 1:06-cv-00535-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 08/30/07 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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 30, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNITED STA j8 TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00535-OWW -DLB Document 17 Filed 08/30/07 Page 3 of 3