Pappas v. North Kern State Prison et al

Filing 13

ORDER Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief re 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 09/29/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:14-cv-00109-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 11.)

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Nicholas Christopher Pappas (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the

20

Complaint commencing this action on January 27, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

21

On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 6.)

23

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of

24

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as

25

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

26

On September 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to protect him from

27

retaliation by correctional staff. (Doc. 11.) The court treats this request as a motion for

28

preliminary injunctive relief.
1

1

II.

MOTION FOR 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

Plaintiff has requested the court to protect him from retaliation by prison staff. A court

24

order protecting Plaintiff from retaliation would not remedy any of the claims upon which this

25

action proceeds. This action is proceeding against defendant Lopez for use of excessive force

26

against Plaintiff, based on an incident occurring on September 20, 2013, before Plaintiff filed

27

this action in January 2014. Plaintiff now seeks a court order protecting him from present and

28

future actions. Because such an order would not remedy any of the claims upon which this
2

1

action proceeds, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and

2

Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.

3

III.

4
5

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on September 15, 2014, is DENIED.

6
7

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 29, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

23
24
25
26
27
28
3