Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01519/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01519-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
N. Grannis
Defendant
James E. Smith
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. GRANNIS, 

Defendant.

 /

1:07-CV-01519-OWW-SMS-PC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT

INTERVENTION REGARDING CONDITIONS

OF CONFINEMENT

(Doc. 14)

 James E. Smith (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 13, 2008, plaintiff filed a document entitled

“Challenging the Ongoing Conditions of Confinement 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a)(1)” in which he

requests the court’s intervention. Plaintiff states that his case at Kern County Superior Court was

dismissed because defendant would not make an arrangement for him to appear at a scheduled

court hearing. Plaintiff also alleges that he was scheduled to be released on or about February 6,

2008, and he is being “fraudulently concealed” at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff appears to

be requesting injunctive relief.

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 

A party seeking a preliminary injunction simply cannot prevail when that motion is unsupported

by evidence. Here, plaintiff has not provided sufficient information for the court to determine

Case 1:07-cv-01519-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 02/29/08 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

what he wants the court to do. Plaintiff requests court intervention but does not explain how a

court order can offer him relief. Furthermore, 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. In this instance, there is not yet an actual case or controversy before the court. On

December 5, 2007, the court issued an order finding that plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in

forma pauperis in this action and requiring plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full. Until plaintiff

has paid the filing fee, he is not entitled to proceed forward with this action. Therefore, at this

juncture, the court does not have power to hear plaintiff’s motion. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01519-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 2