Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00511/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00511-2/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

ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TATE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 511 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (Docs. 13, 15.) 

 Antonio Luis Williams (“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. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on April 28, 2006. 

On July 28, 2006, Plaintiff moved for a Temporary Restraining Order to stop harassment,

etc. by certain correctional officers. That same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion which he titles

“Motin for Temporary Order” wherein he requests that the Court order the Correctional

Institution to take photos of his right shoulder. 

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/02/06 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

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 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). 

In this case, the Court has yet to screen the Complaint filed by Plaintiff to determine

whether it states a cognizable claim for relief. Thus, 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, the Motion for preliminary injunctive relief is

premature. Plaintiff is cautioned to any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are

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

Plaintiff is also informed that a Temporary Restraining Order does not serve to prevent

speculative injury in the form of harassment nor does it provide Plaintiff with photos in order to

support his claims for relief. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 10, 2001, be denied, without prejudice, as

premature. 

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/02/06 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

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

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: August 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 3