(PC) Chubbuck v. Hayden et al, No. 1:2006cv01810 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2006)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 3 plaintiff?s motion forpreliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 13, 2006, be denied, without prejudice, as premature. Matter referred to Judge Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 1/12/2007 signed by Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/19/2006. (Timken, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Chubbuck v. Hayden et al Doc. 5 Case 1:06-cv-01810-OWW-DLB Document 5 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID CHUBBUCK, 12 CASE NO. CV-F-06-1810 OWW DLB P Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED HAYDEN, et al., [Doc. 3] 15 Defendants. / 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed December 13, 19 2006. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to provide medical care and transfer 20 him to a different facility. 21 As a threshold matter, the court deems it necessary to address plaintiff’s decision to combine his 22 first amended complaint and motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff is advised that his 23 pleadings and motions must be separately filed. If plaintiff again combines pleadings and motions in 24 the same filing, the court will order the filing stricken from the record. 25 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities 26 so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until 27 the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 28 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) a combination 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-01810-OWW-DLB Document 5 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and 2 the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 3 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable 4 injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the 5 merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, 6 or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Id. 7 “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 8 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 9 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis 10 added). Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief until such time as the court finds that his 11 complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants and the named defendants 12 have been served with the summons and complaint. At this juncture, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 13 injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff may file another motion for preliminary injunctive relief at a later 14 stage. Plaintiff is cautioned to any further motions for preliminary injunctive relief that are filed before 15 defendants are served with process in this case will be denied as premature. 16 Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for 17 preliminary injunctive relief, filed on December 13, 2006, be denied, without prejudice, as premature. 18 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) days 20 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 21 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 22 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 23 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a December 19, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
