Stratmon v. Tucker et al

Filing 36

ORDER Denying 34 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, for Lack of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/27/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID L. STRATMON, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:12-cv-01837-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(ECF No. 34.)

MARVIN TUCKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

David L. Stratmon, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

23

rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971. This case

24

proceeds on Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed on November 9, 2012, against defendant

25

Morris (Factory Manager) (“Defendant”), for retaliation and interference with incoming mail,

26
27
28

in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF. No. 1.)
On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF No.
34.) Defendant filed a response. (ECF No. 35.)
1

1

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

1985).

23

Discussion

24

Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison officials to relinquish his property to him.

25

The order Plaintiff seeks would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action proceeds.

26

Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s

27

motion must be denied.

28

///
2

1
2
3

III.

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

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 24, 2015, is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 27, 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