(PC) Ahdom v. Etchebehere et al, No. 1:2013cv01623 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be DENIED, Without Prejudice to Renewal of the Motion at a Later Stage of the Proceedings re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/11/2013. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within twenty (20) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILAL AHDOM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. C. ETCHEBEHERE, et al., 15 Defendants. 1:13-cv-01623-AWI-GSA-PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 3.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Bilal Ahdom (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on October 21 9, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On October 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Emergency Temporary 22 Restraining Order (TRO) and Order to Show Cause,” which the court construes as a motion for 23 preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. 3.) 24 II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 25 Plaintiff seeks a court order directing prison officials to provide him with him a diet 26 required by his religion. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if 27 the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to 28 intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. 1 1 University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is 2 available to a plaintiff who Ademonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the 3 possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of 4 hardship tips in its favor.@ Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th 5 Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a significant threat of 6 irreparable injury.@ Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff Ashows no chance of 7 success on the merits.@ Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff Amust demonstrate a fair chance of 8 success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.@ Id. 9 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court 10 must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 11 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation 12 of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of 13 Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or 14 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, A[a] federal 15 court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject 16 matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not 17 before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 18 1985). 19 The Complaint commencing this action was filed only two days ago, and none of the 20 defendants have been served. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not have before 21 it an actual case or controversy, nor does the court have jurisdiction over any of the defendants 22 in this action. Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied, 23 without prejudice to renewing the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 24 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 25 The court has found that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s motion for 26 preliminary injunctive relief at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY 27 RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on October 9, 28 2 1 2013, be DENIED, without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the 2 proceedings. 3 These findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within twenty 5 days after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 6 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate 7 Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 8 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 9 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 11, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3