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
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?