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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?