Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00764/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00764-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

THOMAS WATERBURY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-0764 OWW DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

(DOC 42)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

On January 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for emergency injunctive relief against the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff seeks an order

prohibiting CDCR from collecting more than 20% of his trust account to forward to the Clerk of the

Court. .

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

Case 1:05-cv-00764-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 01/31/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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). Defendants in this case have not yet been served. Plaintiff is not entitled to

preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the named defendants have been served with the

summons and complaint. At this juncture, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is

premature. Plaintiff may file another motion for preliminary injunctive relief at a later stage. 

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. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order filed January 26, 2007 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 twenty (20)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." The parties are 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: January 31, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

Case 1:05-cv-00764-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 01/31/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00764-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 3