(PC) Calderon v. Woodford et al, No. 1:2007cv01719 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/24/2009, Recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied re 51 . Motion referred to Judge O'Neill. (Objections to F&R due by 10/28/2009) (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF

(PC) Calderon v. Woodford et al Doc. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JUAN C. CALDERON, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01719-LJO-YNP PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MOTION v. (Doc. 51) 12 JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Juan C. Calderon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 17 “Motion for Preliminary Injunctions; New Motions for the Preliminary Injunctions” filed on June 18 22, 2009. (Doc. #51.) Plaintiff requests to “be removed from [s]tate [c]ustody and transferred to 19 a federal prison or to a Mexican prison where he would be safe.” (Mot. for Prelim. Inj.; New Mot. 20 for the Prelim. Inj. 2:13-15.) 21 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities 22 so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions 23 until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 24 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) 25 a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious 26 questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air 27 Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must 28 demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must 2 demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” 3 Id. 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must 5 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 6 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and 7 State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 8 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has 9 no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has 10 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 11 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States 12 Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). 13 The court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend, for failure 14 to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Thus, at this point in time, 15 there is no case or controversy before the court, and the court has no jurisdiction to issue any 16 preliminary injunctions. Until and unless the court finds that plaintiff has stated cognizable claims 17 for relief under section 1983 and the defendants against whom the claims are stated have been served 18 and made an appearance in this action, the court will not have jurisdiction to issue any orders 19 awarding the relief plaintiff seeks. 20 21 Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed June 22, 2009, be DENIED. 22 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 24 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written 25 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 26 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 2 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij September 24, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.