Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01232/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01232-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY EMANUEL POLLARD,

Plaintiff, 1: 09 CV 01232 LJO MJS PC 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE

MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 14)

K. HARRINGTON,

Defendant.

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for a court order

directing prison officials to re-issue items of personal property to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation at Kern Valley State Prison, initiated this action by civil complaint filed in the

Northern District on May 1, 2009. The case was transferred to this court on July 9, 2009. In the

order transferring the action, the court noted that “Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 USC Section 1983 alleging that certain correctional officers violated his

constitutional rights.” On March 18, 2010, this court dismissed the complaint for failure to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted, but gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 

Case 1:09-cv-01232-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2

On April 28, 2010, the time for filing an amended complaint was extended thirty days.

In the order dismissing the complaint, this court described the complaint as a letter from

Plaintiff to the Warden at Kern Valley State Prison complaining about the loss of certain items of

Plaintiff’s personal property. Plaintiff also claimed he had been held in the Administrative

Segregation Unit (AdSeg) for over two months without being formally charged with misconduct. 

 Plaintiff was advised of the pleading requirements for filing a proper civil rights complaint. He

also was advised of the substantive legal requirements for stating a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for

relief for deprivation of property and placement in Administrative Segregation. 

Before entry of the order dismissing his complaint, Plaintiff filed a three page affidavit

characterized as a motion for injuctive relief. In it Plaintiff indicates that he was placed in AdSeg

on October 7, 2009, for refusing to accept a cellmate and that unidentified correctional officers

“seized and stored” Plaintiff’s personal property. Plaintiff also indicates that his litigation efforts

are being used against him to force him to accept an incompatible cellmate. Finally, Plaintiff 

complains of difficulty accessing the courts and complying with deadlines.

As noted, Plaintiff has been granted an extension of time in which to file an amended

complaint, but he has filed no such thing. Thus, there presently is no operative pleading in this

case. 

A preliminary injunction is designed 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. An

Case 1:09-cv-01232-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

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 raise

questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; as a preliminary matter, the court must

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,

454 U.S. 464, 471,(1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If

the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter

in question. 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 dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff has not amended. There is then no case or controversy before the court at this time. 

There being no case or controversy, the court has no jurisdiction to issue a preliminary

injunction.

 Further, the only defendant identified by the Plaintiff is the Warden at Kern Valley State

Prison. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against unspecified correctional officials. The court must

have personal jurisdiction over the parties to be enjoined; it may not enjoin defendants not yet

served or before the court. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9 Cir. 1983). th

Plaintiff has not stated a claim against any defendant, and no defendant has appeared in this

action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive

relief be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

Case 1:09-cv-01232-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days

after being served with 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s

findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2010 /s/ Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01232-LJO-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/07/10 Page 4 of 4