Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05556-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MILTON,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5556 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTION

E. LAWTON, et al., (Document #33)

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding on a civil rights complaint brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Correctional Sergeant E. Lawton and

Correctional Sergeant R. Beer subjected him to excessive force in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. 

On February 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff

requests access to the law library and requests an order prohibiting certain correctional officials

from engaging conduct that interferes with access to the law library. 

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.

Case 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW Document 44 Filed 09/28/05 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

2

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). 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief does not address any conduct on behalf of

the two named defendants in this action. The court must have personal jurisdiction over the

parties to be enjoined; it may not enjoin defendants not yet served or before the court. Zepeda v.

United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). In addition, “to prevail on a motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship between the injury

claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.” Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F.

Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003). Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction regarding law library

access. His underlying claim alleges a violation of his Eighth Amendment by Defendants’

alleged use of excessive force. Preliminary injunctive relief is designed to preserve the status

quo regarding the substance of the case; it is not available for the purpose of ensuring that

Plaintiff can effectively or efficiently litigate his case. As Plaintiff’s motion seeks to redress an

injury unrelated to the underlying action, the preliminary injunction must be denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW Document 44 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2