Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06288/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06288-7/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

)

FRANCOIS P. GIVENS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-6288 AWI DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING THAT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE

DENIED

[Docs. 60, 79]

OBJECTIONS DUE MARCH 20,

2007

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the court are two motions for preliminary

injunctive relief. Both motions request that the Court advance this case to trial and further issue

restraining orders prohibiting defendants from coming into contact with plaintiff during this action or

interfering with plaintiff’s legal mail and legal materials. 

As plaintiff has been advised, 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

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 82 Filed 03/07/07 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

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). 

This case has been on appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal since January 27, 2006. 

On December 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On October

27, 2006, plaintiff requested leave to amend the complaint to include new claims and parties. The

Court has granted this request. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims have not yet been screened by the

Court, nor has the Court determined that plaintiff has stated cognizable claims against the named

defendants. Plaintiff has been advised that he 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. 

Plaintiff’s motions are once again premature. 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. 

Further, even if, at a future time, the court finds plaintiff has stated cognizable claims for

relief and this action proceeds forward, the court cannot issue orders that do not remedy the claims

alleged in this action. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to an order that, rather than serving to remedy the

claims in this action, serves to allow plaintiff to litigate this action more effectively. 

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

preliminary injunctive relief be denied, without prejudice, as premature. 

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 82 Filed 03/07/07 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

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). On or before March

20, 2007, 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 6, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 82 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 3