Davis v. Wilson et al
Filing
9
ORDER Denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 08/18/2016. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KELLY DAVIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:16-cv-00605-EPG-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 3.)
vs.
R. WILSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
I.
BACKGROUND
20
Kelly Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
21
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action
22
on April 29, 2016, together with a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.)
23
On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action
24
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 5.)
25
Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of
26
California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as
27
reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
28
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is now before the Court.
1
1
II.
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
“demonstrates 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 “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also,
10
an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id.
11
At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must 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 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State,
16
Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir.
17
2006). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to
18
hear the matter in question. Id. As an initial matter, “a court has no power to adjudicate a
19
personal claim or obligation unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” Zenith
20
Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (emphasis added); S.E.C. v.
21
Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007).
22
Discussion
23
Plaintiff requests a Court order enjoining defendants from denying or delaying medical
24
treatment to Plaintiff including “appropriate diagnostic procedures, appropriate specialist
25
consultations and recommend[ed] procedure[s] and treatments deemed necessary, from denying
26
or delaying prescription of appropriate and effective pain relief medications for lumbar disc(s)
27
desiccation, hypertrophic degeneration, annular fissures and multiple central canal & bilateral
28
neural forminal narrowing.” (ECF No. 3 at 1:20-25.)
2
1
In this case, no defendant has yet made an appearance; it is not yet time for service of
2
process in this case, which will then trigger defendants’ obligation to file a response to the
3
complaint. Whatever merit there might otherwise be to Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary
4
injunction, at this juncture the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants and it
5
cannot issue an order requiring them to take any action. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110;
6
Ross, 504 F.3d at 1138-39. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Plaintiff is not
7
precluded from renewing the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
8
III.
9
10
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, filed on April 29, 2016, is DENIED, without prejudice.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 18, 2016
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?