Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01904-3/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

WADE BUSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01904-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE

DENIED AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Wade Bush (“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 April 25, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to provide plaintiff with treatment for his

broken hand.

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 ofthe 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 ofirreparable 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

///

Case 1:06-cv-01904-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 05/03/07 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

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. 

This action involves the allegation that defendants have not provided plaintiff with medical

treatment for his broken hand, and plaintiff is seeking a court order requiring them to do so.

However, in a separate order, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Until (1) plaintiff files a complaint which

states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983, and (2) one or more defendants have been

served with process and made an appearance in this action, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue an

order directing defendants to provide plaintiff with medical care. 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.”). For this reason, plaintiff’s

motion is premature at this stage, and the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion

for preliminary injunctive relief, filed April 25, 2007, be DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing at

the appropriate juncture.

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 thirty (30)

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 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01904-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 05/03/07 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01904-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 3