Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445-0/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

ROBERT D. GIBSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

WARDEN OF CORCORAN STATE )

PRISON, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 03 CV 5445 AWI DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Docs. 36, 39, 40, 43] 

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court are several Motions for Preliminary

Injunction filed by Plaintiff.

On February 28, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction advising that

“defendants are still engaged in abuses and physical attacks on prisoners in their custody.” On

March 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that defendants be

prohibited from confiscating legal documents from inmates. On March 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a

motion for preliminary injunction requesting an order restricting defendants’ handling of plaintiff’s

personal property. On May 2, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction “compelling

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 44 Filed 05/06/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

defendants to perform their pre-existing duties under the U.S. Constitution.” Plaintiff alleges that he

is being denied library access and that he feels threatened by defendants.

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 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.

“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). 

On November 24, 2004, the Court issued a recommendation that the case proceed against

certain defendants on plaintiff’s claims of excessive force. However, on January 12, 2005, Plaintiff

requested leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court granted. Plaintiff requested an

additional extension of time and on April 21, 2005, filed a fourth amended complaint which the

Court has not yet deemed suitable for service. Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief

until such time as the court finds that his complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the

named defendants and the named defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. At

this juncture, plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief are premature. Plaintiff may file

another motion for preliminary injunctive relief at a later stage. Plaintiff is cautioned that any further

motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are filed before defendants are served with process in

this case will be denied as premature. 

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 44 Filed 05/06/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 3

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motions for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on February 28, 2005, March 11, 2005, March 22, 2005 and May

2, 2005, be denied, without prejudice, as premature. 

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: May 5, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 44 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 3