Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02108/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02108-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CDCR
Defendant
Robin Gillen Starr
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

ROBIN GILLEN STARR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION,

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF BE DENIED

(Docs 27, 37.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Robin Gillen Starr (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing

this action on December 22, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On January 23, 2013, the Court entered an order

dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim and violation of Rules 8 and 18, with leave to

amend. (Doc. 56.) 

On July 18, 2012 and August 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed motions for preliminary injunctive

relief. (Docs. 27, 37.) 

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff has filed motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order,

requesting the Court to order Defendants to expunge inmates’ records that qualify, stop double

1

Case 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA Document 57 Filed 01/29/13 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

jeopardy, stop giving heavier penalties than laws allow, stop slander and slavery under the law,

reverse all priors and strikes, restrain defendants from blocking inmate access to courts, and order

the release of inmates.

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.

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). 

By separate order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim and

violation of Rules 8 and 18. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff has been granted leave to file an amended

complaint within thirty days. Id. Therefore, at this juncture, the Court does not have before it an

actual case or controversy, nor does the Court have jurisdiction over any of the Defendants in this

///

2

Case 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA Document 57 Filed 01/29/13 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

action. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief

must be denied.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 18, 2012 and August 28, 2012, be DENIED.

These findings and recommendation are 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 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendation." 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: January 29, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA Document 57 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 3