Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06763/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06763-0/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

FRED W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUSKEY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6763 REC SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Doc. 9.) 

 Fred W. Davis (“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 March 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed

Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff alleges that 

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted). 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

Case 1:04-cv-06763-NVW Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 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

(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.

In addition, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited

jurisdiction, as a threshold and preliminary matter the court must have before it for consideration

a “case” or “controversy.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). If the court does not have a

“case” or “controversy” before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Rivera v.

Freeman, 469 F. 2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). 

In an Order issued concurrent with these Findings and Recommendations, the Court has

screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. As such, the Complaint

does not yet state a claim for relief and the Court is without the jurisdiction to issue any such

orders. 

The Court notes further that Plaintiff’s Motion seeking injunctive relief merely seeks the

same relief for the same claims raised in the Complaint. In other words, the Motion is a mirror

image with respect to the claims raised and relief sought in the Complaint. In such a case, the

Court is unable to make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his

allegations when the Motion is premised on those same allegations. For this reason it is

inappropriate for a Plaintiff to file the same claims and requests for relief made in his action in

Motion form. By doing so, Plaintiff does not make the Court more likely to resolve his case

more quickly. In fact, filing inappropriate motions only serves to divert the Court’s attention

away from the resolution of one’s case. 

The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief

be DENIED. 

Case 1:04-cv-06763-NVW Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 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

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

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 THIRTY (30) 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: April 11, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06763-NVW Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3