(PC) West v. Yates, No. 1:2007cv00551 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 1/30/2009, recommending that that Plaintiff's 16 20 requests for injunctive relief be DENIED. Motions referred to Judge Wanger. (Objections to F&R due by 3/4/2009) (Figueroa, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) West v. Yates Doc. 23 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 JOHN E. WEST, Plaintiff, 8 9 vs. 1: 07 CV 0551 OWW WMW PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER RE MOTIONS (DOCS 16, 20) 10 11 12 13 JAMES A. YATES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff has filed requests for injunctive relief regarding his medical care. The purpose 17 of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily 18 favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until 19 the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 20 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) 21 a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious 22 questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air 23 Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must 24 demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if 25 the plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 “must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require 2 litigation.” Id. 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 4 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 5 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 6 454 U.S. 464, 471,(1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If 7 the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter 8 in question. Id. “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the 9 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights 10 of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 11 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). By an order issued with this recommendation, the court 12 dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims 13 upon which relief may be granted. Thus, at this point in time, there is no case or controversy 14 before the court, and the court has no jurisdiction to issue any preliminary injunctions. 15 16 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 22 shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 23 that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s 24 findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 26 2 1 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: January 30, 2009 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
