Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANARD KITCHENS

Plaintiff,

v.

TORDSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-0105-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF No. 27)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Plaintiff Lanard Kitchens (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 27.) 

Plaintiff asks that the Court order Atascadero State Hospital to comply with state

regulations and provide him with a copy of his “Designated Case Record Set.” (Id.)

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint complains of constitutional violations at Kings

County Jail. (ECF No. 26, 28, 30, 32.) It states a cognizable First Amendment claim

against Defendant Tordsen for retaliation and a Fourteenth Amendment claim against

Defendants Tordsen, Coker, Leach, and Day for subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional

conditions of confinement. (Id.) 

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

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 34 Filed 08/13/13 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

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 on 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 (1983); 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. 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in this action alleges that defendants’ violated

his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Kings County Jail. (ECF No. 26.) 

That pleading defines the controversy before the Court in this case. The defendants here

do not have any ties to Atascadero State Hospital. Plaintiff raises no claims against that

hospital or about a failure to provide a “Designated Case Record Set.” An order relating

to documents at Atascadero State Hospital would not remedy the claim upon which this

action proceeds. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by

Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's

motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 28) be DENIED without prejudice.

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendation, any

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 34 Filed 08/13/13 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

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: August 13, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

il0i0d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 34 Filed 08/13/13 Page 3 of 3