Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05105/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05105-1/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

JAMES G. STAMOS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMERIZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5105 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY MOTION FOR ORDER THAT ALL

DOCUMENTS BE KEPT IN PLAINTIFF”S

POSSESSION SHOULD HE BE

TRANSFERRED (Doc. 22.) 

 James G. Stamos, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

January 16, 2004.

On January 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion/Request All Documents Be

Kept In My Possession During Transfer to Any Place. . .” In this pleading, Plaintiff requests that

the Court issue an Order requiring that Plaintiff’s legal materials be transferred with Plaintiff

should he be transferred at any time during the course of the action. Plaintiff says that the Order

would prevent the documents from being lost or destroyed. The court construes Plaintiff’s

request as a request for preliminary injunctive relief. 

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are well

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 27 Filed 08/16/05 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

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to

the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune,

Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also

Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent

two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. "Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a

significant showing of irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. Id.

In this case, Plaintiff’s fear of a transfer without his legal property is speculative. 

Speculative injury, however, does not constitute irreparable harm. Goldies’ Bookstore, Inc. v.

Superior Court of the State of California, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). 

In addition, the court is unable to issue any order against individuals who are not parties

to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

The Court most recently issued an Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend because

the complaint did not state a cause of action. Thus, no Defendants have yet appeared in the

action. Moreover, because the federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, as a threshold

matter, the court must have before it a case or controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88

(1968). Absent such a case or controversy, the court has no power to hear the matter. Rivera v.

Freeman, 469 F.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). Since the complaint in this case does not

contain cognizable claims for relief, there is no controversy present and the court cannot address

either the likelihood of success on the merits or whether there are serious questions going to the

merits of Plaintiff’s claims. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Request for an Order requiring that

Plaintiff’s property accompany him on any transfer be DENIED. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 27 Filed 08/16/05 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

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within FIFTEEN (15) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 27 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3