Manning v. Zamora et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order Directing Prison to Provide Plaintiff Access to Personal Property signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/13/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEROY MANNING,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:12-cv-01621-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT
ORDER DIRECTING PRISON TO
PROVIDE PLAINTIFF ACCESS TO
PERSONAL PROPERTY
(Doc. 41.)

vs.
L. D. ZAMORA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

I.

21

BACKGROUND
Leroy Manning (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

22

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action

23

on October 3, 2012. (Doc. 1.)

24

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing prison officials

25

to provide him with his personal property, particularly his reading glasses. (Doc. 41.)

26

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

27

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

28

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 is presently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California.

22

Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison officials there to provide him with his personal

23

property. However, the events at issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint allegedly occurred in 2011 at

24

Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there.

25

Plaintiff seeks would require present actions by persons who are not defendants in this action

26

and would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds. Therefore, the court

27

lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.

28

///
2

The order

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a court

order directing prison officials to provide him with his property is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 13, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

23
24
25
26
27
28
3