Stewart v. Holland et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/9/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACY L. STEWART,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:14-cv-00322-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. 8.)

K. HOLLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Tracy L. Stewart ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

22

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

23

March 7, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On July 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive

24

relief. (Doc. 8.)

25

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

26

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

27

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

28

the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

1985).

19

Discussion

20

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-

21

Sacramento) in Represa, California. Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison officials at

22

CSP-Sacramento to allow him access to the prison law library and provide him with forms to

23

exhaust his administrative remedies. However, the events at issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint

24

allegedly occurred in 2013 at California State Prison-Corcoran, California Mens Colony, and

25

Pelican Bay State Prison, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at those facilities. The order Plaintiff

26

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

27

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

28

jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff=s motion must be denied.
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 23, 2014, is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 9, 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