Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06769/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06769-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAFAYETTE CADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUBBARD, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6769 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (Doc. 10) 

 Lafayette Cade (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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

On July 25, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for Order

to Show Cause / Temporary Restraining Order.” In this document, Plaintiff requests an Order to

Show Cause be issued and that the Court also issue a Temporary Restraining Order precluding

Defendants from employing “adverse substances and other things to debilitate Plaintiff’s physical

and mental being.” 

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

Case 1:04-cv-06769-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 07/28/05 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

27

28

2

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.

“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). Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time

as the Court finds that his Complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named

Defendants and the named Defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. At

this juncture, Plaintiff’s Motion for preliminary injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff is

cautioned that any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are filed before

Defendants are served with process in this case will be denied as premature. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for

a Temporary Restraining Order, filed July 19, 2005, be DENIED, without prejudice, as

premature. 

These Findings and Recommendations are ORDERED 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 twenty (20) 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: July 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06769-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 2