Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01319-3/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

JEFF S. HARNDEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-01319-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Docs. 5, 6)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY

(20) DAYS

Plaintiff, Jeff S. Harnden (“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 the complaint that

commenced this action on September 10, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On September 28, 2007, plaintiff filed a

motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, seeking an order preventing

physical contact between plaintiff and another inmate named Batten; ordering the State of California

to pay for an independent psychiatrist to evaluate plaintiff, and requiring the prison to provide a safe

yard for sex offenders. (Doc. 5.) On September 28, 2007, plaintiff also filed a document entitled

“order to show cause,” which appears to be, and shall be construed as, a proposed order granting the

motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 6.)

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

Case 1:07-cv-01319-MHM Document 12 Filed 03/31/08 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

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.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and 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, 103

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (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. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only]

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). 

In a separate order, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim and

ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. At this juncture, the court does not

yet have before it an actual case or controversy. Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS

plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed September 28, 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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: March 31, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

Case 1:07-cv-01319-MHM Document 12 Filed 03/31/08 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

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01319-MHM Document 12 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3