(PC) Gates v. Gonzales et al, No. 1:2009cv00526 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 20 Request to Extend Time to File Amended Complaint; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be Denied; Objections, if any, Due in Twenty (20) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/27/2009. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 11/19/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Gates v. Gonzales et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LEON S. GATES, 10 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00526-OWW-DLB PC Plaintiff, 11 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT v. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 12 GONZALES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN TWENTY (20) DAYS 16 / (Doc. 12) 17 18 Plaintiff Leon S. Gates (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed 20 a motion requesting: 1) an extension of time to file a motion to extend time; 2) a court order 21 commanding the S.S.A. to provide Plaintiff with his case file, in order for Plaintiff to state his claims 22 fully and fairly; and 3) the Court contact the Warden to inquire into the lack of copying, writing 23 instruments, paper, and envelopes available to inmates. 24 I. Motion to Extend Time 25 Plaintiff indicates that he intends to file a motion to extend time to file his amended 26 complaint. The Court treats the instant motion as such a request. Good cause appearing, the request 27 to extend time to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. 28 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is due thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. Motion for Court Order and Court Inquiry 2 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities 3 so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions 4 until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 5 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) 6 a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious 7 questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air 8 Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must 9 demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the 10 plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must 11 demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” 12 Id. 13 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must 14 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 15 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and 16 State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 17 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has 18 no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] 19 if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may 20 not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States 21 Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 22 By order issued September 23, 2009, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to 23 state a claim upon which relief may be granted and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 24 within thirty days. At this juncture, the Court does not yet have before it an actual case or 25 controversy and has no jurisdiction to issue any preliminary injunctions. 26 27 28 Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for a Court order and a Court inquiry, filed October 19, 2009, be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 1 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) 2 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 3 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 4 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 5 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 6 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a October 27, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
