Garcia v. Beard et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, for Lak of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/9/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELIPE GARCIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:14-cv-00625-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. 13.)

JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Felipe Garcia ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

21

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

22

28, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On August 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive

23

relief. (Doc. 13.)

24

II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

1985).

18

Discussion

19

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran (CSP-COR) in

20

Corcoran, California. Plaintiff seeks a court order prohibiting prison officials at CSP-COR

21

from housing him in a particular housing unit, denying him access to the prison law library and

22

legal resources, retaliating against him, threatening him, and making false accusations against

23

him. However, the events at issue in Plaintiff’s Complaint allegedly occurred in 2013 and 2014

24

at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, when Plaintiff was

25

incarcerated there. The order Plaintiff seeks would require present actions by persons who are

26

not defendants in this action and would not remedy any of the claims upon which this action

27

proceeds. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and

28

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 August 6, 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