Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01243-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE L. MARSH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

M. VEGIANELLI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:09-cv-01243-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 8, 9, 10, 17, 18.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Lawrence L. Marsh (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint

commencing this action on July 17, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On August 19, 2009, Plaintiff consented to the

jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, and no other party has appeared in this action. 

(Doc. 5.) On January 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 16.) On February 3,

2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, which was granted by the Court by separate

order.

Plaintiff filed motions for preliminary injunction on October 2, 2009, November 5, 2009,

November 16, 2009, January 6, 2010, and February 3, 2010. (Docs. 8, 9, 10, 17, 18.) The motions

for preliminary injunction are now before the Court.

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-01243-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 02/17/10 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

II. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An

injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold

requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” 

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983) (citations omitted);

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). “Abstract injury is not enough.” 

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 1665. “[P]laintiff must show that he has sustained or is

immediatelyin danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct

and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” 

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The key issue is whether the plaintiff is ‘likely to

suffer future injury.’” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126 (quoting Lyons at 105, 1667). When a government

agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal

affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state agency is involved, these considerations

are, in anything, strengthened because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128. “[A]ny

injunctive relief awarded must avoid unnecessary disruption to the state agency’s ‘normal course of

proceeding.’” Id. at 1128 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 669, 679

(1974)). 

By separate order, the Court granted Plaintiff ‘s motion for leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint, which is due within thirty days. Afterthe Second Amended Complaint is filed, the Court

is required to conduct a screening to determine if Plaintiff states any cognizable claims. None of the

defendants have yet appeared in this action. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, the court

2

Case 1:09-cv-01243-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 02/17/10 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

does not yet have before it an actual case or controversy, nor does the court have jurisdiction over

any of the defendants in this action. As a result, the Court has no jurisdiction at this time to award

any preliminary injunctive relief. “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). Once the Court has before it a pleading that states a claim for

relief, thereby satisfying the actual case or controversy requirement, Plaintiff may seek preliminary

injunctive relief that is sufficiently related to his cognizable legal claims to confer jurisdiction on the

Court to award the relief sought. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101; Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126; 18 U.S.C. §

3626(a)(1)(A). Until such time, a request for preliminary injunctive relief is premature, and

Plaintiff’s motions must be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction at this juncture to grant

preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for

preliminaryinjunctive relief, filed October 2, 2009, November 5, 2009, November 16, 2009, January

6, 2010, and February 3, 2010, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 16, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-01243-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 3