United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN
DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF
NO. 9) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kyle Petersen (“Plaintiff”) is a county jail
inmate proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint has not yet
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for order to show
cause, filed May 22, 2018. (ECF No. 9.) In his motion,
Plaintiff states that he has been denied access to the Lexis
Nexis kiosk at the Fresno County Jail because, pursuant to
jail policy, there has been no ruling in this action that
would require him to have access. Plaintiff therefore
requests an order to show cause or other ruling from this
Court that would grant him access to the legal research kiosk
to research any applicable case law, statutes, constitutional
provisions, and/or government codes that will assist him in
his case. (Id.)
Court construes Plaintiff's motion, to the extent he
seeks an order allowing him access to the legal research
kiosk, as a request for a preliminary injunction against the
jail officials at the Fresno County Jail.
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted).
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he
is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An
injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering
a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is
bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of
L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church &
State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does
not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no
power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests
for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought]
is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to
correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the
the pendency of this action does not give the Court
jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v.
Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009);
Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th
Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the
parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon
which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S.
at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he
seeks in this motion. The Court is required to screen
complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint,
or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is
frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened, the
Court cannot find that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of
success on the merits. In addition, no defendant has been
ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an appearance.
Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over
any officials at Fresno County Jail, and it cannot issue an
order requiring them to take any action.
Plaintiff's motion makes no showing that he will suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the
balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction
is in the public interest. The Court notes that at this time,
there are no pending orders requiring Plaintiff to file any
responses or to conduct any research in this case.
Plaintiff's complaint will be screened in due course, and
the Court will provide Plaintiff with the relevant legal
standards for any deficiencies identified in the complaint.