(PC) Wade Rainey v. Guadalupe Garcia DDS, No. 1:2008cv01731 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For A Preliminary Injunction (Documents # 26 & # 35 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/27/2010. (Scrivner, E)
Download PDF
(PC) Wade Rainey v. Guadalupe Garcia DDS Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) GUADALUPE M. GARCIA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) WADE RAINEY, 1: 08-CV-1731 AWI GBC (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Documents #26 & #35) 18 19 Wade Rainey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 20 against a prison official pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On July 30, 2010 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations, 23 recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. The Findings and 24 Recommendations gave notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days. On 25 September 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed objections. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 305, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 28 court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Dockets.Justia.com 1 As explained by the Magistrate Judge, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction and the 2 court must have before it a case or controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). Absent 3 such a case or controversy, the court has no power to hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 4 F.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, 5 the moving party must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the 6 conduct giving rise to the complaint. See Omega World Travel. Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 7 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir.1997); Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.1994) (per 8 curiam); Wilson v. Baker, 2008 WL 2825275, *1 (E.D.Cal. 2008); Williams v. Schwarzenegger, 9 2008 WL 2557980, *1 (E.D.Cal. 2008); Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 10 2003). “A district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of 11 the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” 12 Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997). The complaint in this action 13 concerns Defendants failure to provide Plaintiff with dental care. The pending motion concerns 14 problems Plaintiff is having obtaining his legal materials. Because the complaint in this case 15 does not contain allegations raising issues similar to those presented in the instant motion, there 16 is no controversy present with respect to such issues and, as a result, the court cannot address 17 either the likelihood of success on the merits or whether there are serious questions going to the 18 merits of plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the motion must be denied. 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. 21 ADOPTED in full; and 22 23 The Findings and Recommendations entered on July 30, 2010 are 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: 0m8i78 September 27, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2