Leinweber v. Day et al

Filing 14

ORDER STRIKING 11 Motion Construed as Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/13/2010. (Bradley, A)

(PC)Leinweber v. Day et al

Doc. 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MIKHEIL J. LEINWEBER, 9 10 v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01535-DLB PC ORDER STRIKING MOTION CONSTRUED AS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF NO. 11) Defendants. / 13 14 Plaintiff Mihkeil J. Leinweber ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 A. DAY, et al., 12

15 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights 16 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for law 17 library access filed May 3, 2010. (ECF NO. 11.) The Court construes this as a motion for 18 preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's motion is unsigned. The Court cannot consider unsigned 19 motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion, 20 filed May 3, 2010, is STRICKEN. 21 Even if Plaintiff's motion was signed, Plaintiff's motion would have been denied. "A

22 plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 23 that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 24 equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural 25 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose of 26 preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending 27 the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 28 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court

2 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 3 102, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 4 Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the court does not 5 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. 6 Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, "[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal 7 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to 8 determine the rights of persons not before the court." Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 9 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 Here, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to access the law library at California State Prison, Los

11 Angeles County ("CSP-LAC"), where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. (Pl.'s Mot. 1-3.) CSP12 LAC is not a party to this action, and the Court would thus have no jurisdiction to impose any 13 injunction. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. 14 15 3b142a 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

July 13, 2010

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE