Fraher v. Heyne et al
Filing
24
ORDER Denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Mail Interference, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/14/12. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
CECILIA FRAHER,
CASE NO.
1:10-cv-0951-MJS (PC)
9
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REGARDING MAIL INTERFERENCE
10
v.
11
(ECF No. 22)
DR. S. HEYNE, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
/
14
15
Plaintiff Cecilia Fraher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
16
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to
17
the Magistrate Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 6.)
18
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion to submit evidence of institutional interference
19
in Plaintiff’s access to the court.” (Mot., ECF No. 22.) It is unclear if Plaintiff is asking
20
simply to submit evidence to the Court or if she also wishes to move for injunctive relief.
21
The Court will apply the standards for both to Plaintiff’s motion.
22
I.
MOTION TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE
23
The Court has not yet authorized Plaintiff’s Complaint to be served. No opposing
24
parties have appeared in the action. There is nothing pending in this matter that would call
25
for evidence to be filed with the Court.
26
The Court cannot serve as a repository for the parties' evidence (i.e., medical
27
records, declarations, etc.). Plaintiff, and any other parties who may appear in this action,
28
may not file evidence with the Court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into
1
question (for example, on a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by
2
the Court).
3
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to submit evidence via her motion, the
4
motion is DENIED.
5
II.
6
7
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
It may be that Plaintiff is asking the Court to grant her injunctive relief in connection
with alleged mail interference at Central California Women’s Facility.
8
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance
9
of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to
10
secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of
11
Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a
12
plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility
13
of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship
14
tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987).
15
Under either approach the plaintiff ‘must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable
16
injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success
17
on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of
18
success on the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id.
19
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the
20
Court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
21
U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006).
22
If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear
23
the matter in question. Id.
24
Plaintiff’s is proceeding on an Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim;
25
that claim is the one which presents the controversy pending before the Court. (ECF No.
26
14.) No order relating to mail interference at Plaintiff’s institution would remedy the wrong
27
for which Plaintiff seeks relief in this action . The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to issue
28
the order sought by Plaintiff.
-2-
1
2
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting injunctive relief, Plaintiff’s motion is
DENIED.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
ci4d6
June 14, 2012
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?