Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05950/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05950-6/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

 In the caption of the second motion, plaintiff included the docket number for his pending appeal of this

Court’s prior denial of his motions for injunctive relief. To the extent that plaintiff is seeking some form of relief

from the Ninth Circuit in the instant motion, plaintiff must file a motion with the Court of Appeals rather than this

Court.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5950-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY

RELIEF, AND WARNING PLAINTIFF THAT

ANY FURTHER PREMATURE MOTIONS

WILL BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD

(Docs. 42 and 50)

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 1, 2005,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 28, 2005, plaintiff

filed another motion seeking injunctive relief.1 

As plaintiff has already been informed, 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). (Docs. 26,

43.) 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). “A federal court may

issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 55 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 2
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

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).

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint has been dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure

to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), as was plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

(Doc. 49.) In as much as plaintiff has yet to file a pleading that contains any cognizable claims for

relief, plaintiff is not, at this juncture, entitled to any preliminary relief. Plaintiff’s persistence in

attempting to obtain premature preliminary injunctive relief evidences a lack of good faith. Plaintiff

is warned that if he again files a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief prior to a finding by

the Court that his operative pleading states cognizable claims for relief, the motion will be stricken

from the record. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for declaratory and injunctive relief, filed July 1, 2005 and

September 29, 2005, are HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05950-OWW -LJO Document 55 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 2