Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01556-3/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

LEROY DEWITT HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1556-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT

ORDER TO RELEASE PROPERTY

(ECF No. 16)

Plaintiff Leroy Dewitt Hunter, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 3, 2009.

On May 28, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff

has not yet filed an amended complaint. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order to Release Property [ECF No.

16]. Plaintiff alleges that he was recently transferred from High Desert Prison to Kern

Valley State Prison and that ten boxes containing his legal materials have not yet been

delivered. He asks the Court to order the boxes be delivered. Because Plaintiff asks the

Court to affirmatively require an entity to act, the Court construes the instant motion as one

for injunctive relief. 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation

omitted). “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

Case 1:09-cv-01556-MJS Document 21 Filed 08/11/10 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

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon

a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis

added).

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., 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. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability

constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking

federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for

a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). 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.”

At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has not stated any claims for relief which

are cognizable under federal law. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint and

no amended complaint has been filed. As a result, the Court has no jurisdiction to award

any preliminary injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Orderto Release Property is DENIED. If the

absence of Plaintiff’s legal material makes it difficult or impossible for Plaintiff to file his

amended complaint (which was due on June 30, 2010), Plaintiff is free to request

additional time to file that amended pleadng. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

Case 1:09-cv-01556-MJS Document 21 Filed 08/11/10 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

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01556-MJS Document 21 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 3