Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05092/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05092-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREVOR JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HENSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5092-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE

DENIED AS MOOT

(Doc. 28)

Plaintiff Trevor Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended complaint filed April 16, 2004, against defendants Henson, Aguilar, Arline, and

Adams for depriving him of his property without due process of law. On March 7, 2005, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking a court order mandating the release of his legal property.

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

Case 1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO Document 38 Filed 07/22/05 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

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.

When an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is

incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those

conditions. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517,

519 (9th Cir. 1991). At the time plaintiff filed the pending motion, he was housed at Pleasant Valley

State Prison. Plaintiff subsequently transferred to Centinela State Prison. (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff’s

motion is therefore moot and the court shall recommend that it be denied on that ground.

Additionally, plaintiff is informed that 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). This action is proceeding against

defendants for depriving plaintiff of his quarterly package without due process of law. The issuance

of an order mandating access to plaintiff’s legal property would not remedy the claim alleged in this

action. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such an order.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction mandating access to his legal property, filed March 7, 2005, be DENIED as

moot.

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 thirty (30)

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

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO Document 38 Filed 07/22/05 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

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 22, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05092-AWI-LJO Document 38 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 3