Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490-5/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

 Identified as Lofflin in the complaint.

2

 Identified as Docanto in the complaint.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY SAMUEL CATO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5490-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Docs. 97 and 98) 

Plaintiff Anthony Samuel Cato (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, filed January 23, 2004, against (1) defendants Andrews,

Grandy, Jackson, Weaver, Fehlman, Williams, Warren, Cheema, Rojas, Smith, Alcantar, Casillas,

Loflin,1 Hernandez, Romero, Licon, Espinoza, Molina, Cruz, Fisher, Oseguera, Do Canto,2 and

Chambell under the Eighth Amendment based on food tampering; (2) defendants Brown, Pitts,

Hasadsri, Dang, Andrews, Jackson, and Suarez under the Eighth Amendment for acting with

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’smedical needs;(3) defendants Reynoso, Oseguera and Key under

the Eighth Amendment for use of excessive force; and (4) defendants Pitts, Andrews, and Jackson

under the Due Process Clause based on plaintiff’s claim that he was drugged and tests were

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 105 Filed 03/28/06 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

3

 On December 23, 2004, plaintiff’s claim that he was deprived of his property without due process was

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and defendants Terhune, Scribner, Dill,

Rousseau, Lawton, Trujillo, and Vallejo were dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any

claims upon which relief may be granted against them. (Doc. 39.)

4

 Defendants Jackson, Williams, Rojas, Smith, Alcantar, Cassillas, Hernandez, Romero, Licon, Espinoza,

Molina, Cruz, Chambell, Brown, Suarez, and Reynoso have not been served.

2

conducted on him while he was unconscious.3 On September 20, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking preliminary injunctive relief. On September 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a second motion

seeking essentially the same relief. Defendants Andrews, Cheema, Dang, Do Canto, Fehlman,

Fisher, Grandy, Hasadsri, Key, Loflin, Oseguera, Pitts, Warren, and Weaver did not file a response

to either motion.4 

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.

Plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting staff from sabotaging food trays, discontinuing medical

and mental health treatment, transferring plaintiff to Pelican Bay State Prison, reading sealed mail,

and withholding mail. (Docs. 97, 98.) With respect to plaintiff’s mail issues, classification issues,

and transfer status, 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

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 105 Filed 03/28/06 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

F. 2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). The issuance of the orders sought by plaintiff in his motion

concerning mail, classification, and transfer would not remedy the claims alleged in this action.

Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders.

With respect to plaintiff’s medical and mental health care, and allegation of food tampering,

plaintiff has not made a showing that he is under significant threat of irreparable injury, or that he

has a fair chance of success on the merits. “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and

drastic remedy, one that should not be 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) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff’s motions are unsupported by any evidence that he is in

imminent danger due to the discontinuation of medical and mental health care, or food tampering.

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that he is in imminent danger, and that defendants should be

prohibited from discontinuing his medical and mental health care and tampering with his food trays

are insufficient to support his motions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed September 20, 2005, and September 22, 2005, 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 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

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: March 27, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 105 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 3