Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00108/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00108-0/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

EDWARD JULIAN MULLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. WENCIKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-00108 OWW DLB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

OBJECTIONS DUE IN 30 DAYS

(Doc. 6)

Plaintiff Edward Julian Mullins(“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on two complaints in this case

on July 21, 2006, and July 18, 2006, respectively. On May 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for

preliminary injunction seeking an order mandating his transfer from Pelican BayState Prison, where

he allegedly fears for his safety.

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

Case 1:07-cv-00108-LJO -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/18/07 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. 

In this instance, there is not yet an actual case or controversy before the court. Plaintiff’s case

has not yet been screened by the court. The will not be an actual case or controversy until the court

makes a finding that plaintiff’s compliant states cognizable claims for relief under federal law against

one or more of the named defendants. Once that occurs, the court will not have any jurisdiction over

the named defendants until they are served with process and make an appearance in this action. 

Assuming that the court makes such a finding and one or more defendants are served and

make an appearance in this action, plaintiff will still not be entitled to the relief he seeks in his

motion. Plaintiff’s initial 1983 claims arise from conditions he was allegedly subjected to while at

Tehachapi State Prison. Plaintiff is currently housed at Pelican Bay State Prison and seeks an order

mandating his transfer out of that facility. In the motion for preliminary injunction plaintiff names

Robert Horel (Warden), F. Jacquec (C.D.W.) as defendants. These defendants were not listed in the

initial complaints since plaintiff was not even housed at Pelican Bay State Prison at the time the 1983

compliant was filed. As such, the motion for preliminary injunction is based on different facts and

is filed against different defendants than those raised in plaintiff’s 1983 complaints. The court does

not and will not have jurisdiction in this action over prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison. “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.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis

added). Moreover, this court has no authority to order that state officials transfer prisoners to other

facilities. 

Case 1:07-cv-00108-LJO -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/18/07 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief 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: May 17, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

cf0di0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00108-LJO -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/18/07 Page 3 of 3