United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED (ECF NO. 11.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS
GARY
S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
BACKGROUND
Paul
John Denham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint
commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)
On
September 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 11.) On October 17, 2019,
the court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
and issued an order dismissing the Complaint for violation of
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with leave
to amend. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction is now before the court.
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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 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 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). 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 Federal right.”
Discussion
Plaintiff
seeks “an order to enjoin Defendant Stu Sherman, and
his agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting
under, in concert with, or for him to (1) cease use of the
SATF Facility E dining hall for the feeding of prisoners; and
(2) to cease the storage of prisoner food trays directly
under a damaged ceiling at the SATF Facility E dining
hall.” (ECF No. 11 at 2:4-7.)
In this
case, there is no complaint on file in which the court has
found cognizable claims. Therefore, at this stage of the
proceedings the court cannot opine that Plaintiff is likely
to succeed on the merits of his claims. Furthermore, no
defendants have yet appeared in this action and the court
does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief which
would require directing individuals not before the court to
take action. Zepeda v. United States Immigration &
Naturalization Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985)
(“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.”).
Therefore,
Plaintiff's motion must be denied at this juncture.
Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing the motion at a
later stage of the proceedings.
III.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based
on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief,
filed on ...