Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00217/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00217-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Defendant
Les Weidman
Defendant
John M. Wilson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN M. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY BOARD 

 OF SUPERVISORS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06-217 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

INJUNCTION (Doc. 23.) 

 John M. Wilson (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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

October 14, 2005, in the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District

of California. The Sacramento Division ordered service of the Complaint on Defendants

Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Les Weidman on November 15, 2005. 

Defendants moved for a change of venue on January18, 2006, and the Motion was granted. This

Court received the case on February 27, 2006, after the summons was returned executed by the

Board of Supervisors and unexecuted by Sheriff Les Weidman. 

On November 3, 2006, Plaintiff field a Motion for Temporary Injunction. 

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of

Case 1:06-cv-00217-LJO -SMS Document 39 Filed 01/17/07 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

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.

“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). In an order issued concurrently with this Findings and

Recommendations, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, with leave to amend. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. Plaintiff 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. At this juncture,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction is premature. Accordingly, the Court

RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Temporary Injunction be DENIED.

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Case 1:06-cv-00217-LJO -SMS Document 39 Filed 01/17/07 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

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00217-LJO -SMS Document 39 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3