Brown v. United States of America, et al.

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 54 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief as Premature, Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/6/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOSEPH A. BROWN,

11

Plaintiff,
vs.

12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

1:12-cv-00165-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AS PREMATURE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. 54.)

Defendants.

14
15
16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

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

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388

19

(1971). Plaintiff filed this case on February 6, 2012. (Doc. 1.)

20

On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Fifth Amended Complaint and a motion for

21

preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 53, 54, 55.) Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive

22

relief 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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

1985).

17

Discussion

18

AA federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the

19

parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights

20

of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719,

21

727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).

22

Plaintiff requests an order requiring defendant Paul Copenhaven, Warden of United

23

States Penitentiary (USP)-Atwater to “strike, void, and or remove the referral used to send the

24

plaintiff Joseph A. Brown to a lock-down, control-unit facility.” (Motion, Doc. 54 at 6 ¶16.)

25

Because defendant Copenhaven has not appeared in this action, the Court does not have

26

jurisdiction at this stage of the proceedings to issue an order requiring him to act. Therefore,

27

Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied as premature, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a

28

later stage of the proceedings.
2

1
2
3

III.

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

preliminary injunction, filed March 3, 2014, is DENIED as premature, without prejudice.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 6, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3