Brown v. United States of America, et al.

Filing 52

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 02/10/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH A. BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:12-cv-00165-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AS MOOT
(Doc. 47.)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

Joseph A. Brown ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
19
20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Plaintiff filed this case on February 6, 2012. (Doc. 1.)
On December 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Fourth Amended Complaint and a motion for

21
22
23
24

preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 47, 48.) On February 6, 2014, the court issued an order
dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend.
(Doc. 51.)
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is now before the court.

25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND

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

1

1

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.

2

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who

3

Ademonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable

4

harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.@

5

Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either

6

approach the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an

7

injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of success on the merits.@ Id. At a

8

bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or

9

questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id.

10

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

11

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

12

102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation

13

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of

14

Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or

15

controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal

16

court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject

17

matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

18

before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

19

1985).

20

Discussion

21

Plaintiff requests an order voiding the results of his disciplinary hearing and remove

22

him from the lockdown facility where he is housed.

23

On February 6, 2014, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint for

24

failure to state a claim, with leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint which will supercede the

25

Fourth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 51.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file the

26

Fifth Amended Complaint. (Id.) Therefore, at this juncture, the court does not have before it

27

an actual case or controversy, nor does the court have jurisdiction over any of the defendants in

28
2

1

this action.

2
3

III.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief shall be denied as moot.

4
5

Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 12, 2013, is DENIED as moot.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

10
11
12

February 10, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3