Starr v. CDCR

Filing 24

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Injunction Be Denied (Doc. 4 ), Objections, If Any, Due In Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/16/2012. F&R's referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 8/20/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBIN GILLEN STARR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:11-cv-02108-AWI-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF BE DENIED
(Doc. 4.)

v.
A. TREVINO, M.D., et al.,

15

Defendants.

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY
DAYS

16
/
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Robin Gillen Starr (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

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

21

this action on December 22, 2011. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive

22

relief on December 22, 2011. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before the court.

23

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

24

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

25

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions

26

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

27

390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1)

28

a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious
1

1

questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air

2

Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must

3

demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the

4

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

5

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

6

Id.

7

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

8

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

9

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and

10

State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d

11

1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has

12

no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only]

13

if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may

14

not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States

15

Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

16

On January 19, 2012, February 15, 2012, and April 6, 2012, Plaintiff requested leave to file

17

an amended complaint. (Docs. 10, 14, 18.) On January 23, 2012, February 16, 2012, and April 19,

18

2012, the Court informed Plaintiff that under Rule 15(a), he may amend the complaint once, without

19

leave of court, at any time before a responsive pleading is served. (Docs. 11, 15, 23.) On June 26,

20

2012, Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to amend the complaint, and to date Plaintiff has not

21

filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 23.) Therefore, at this juncture, the Court does not yet have

22

before it an actual case or controversy.

23

Moreover, the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is not available in this § 1983 action.

24

Plaintiff requests a temporary restraining order releasing him or correcting sentencing errors. When

25

a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a constitutional challenge

26

which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.

27

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.

28

denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Since Plaintiff’s motion plainly challenges his conviction and
2

1

sentence, Plaintiff’s sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus, not a § 1983 action, and therefore

2

his motion must be denied.

3

III.

4
5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 22, 2011, be DENIED.

6

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge

7

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days

8

after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with

9

the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

10

Recommendation." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

11

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:
6i0kij

July 16, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3