Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01900/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01900-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David J. Cataldo
Plaintiff
James A. Yates
Defendant

Document Text:

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

DAVID J. CATALDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01900-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED

(Doc. 10)

Plaintiff David J. Cataldo (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 16, 2007, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking an order mandating prison officials stock and maintain an adequate law

library, and allow inmates access to the law library as needed for preparation and research. 

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 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01900-LJO -LJO Document 15 Filed 06/13/07 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

2

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). 

On April 20, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within

thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and as a result, the court does not yet

have before it an actual case or controversy. 

Further, assuming that plaintiff files an amended complaint stating cognizable claims for

relief under section 1983, plaintiff is not entitled to an order correcting general law library

conditions. “[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.” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101, 103 S.Ct. at 1665 (citations omitted); Jones, 444 F.3d at

1126. “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 immediately in 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)),

Case 1:06-cv-01900-LJO -LJO Document 15 Filed 06/13/07 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

3

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)).

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed February 16, 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

thirty (30) 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: June 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01900-LJO -LJO Document 15 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3