From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia v. McGuinnes

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 6, 2006
Case No. CV-F-05-1275 OWW DLB P, Doc. 17 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. CV-F-05-1275 OWW DLB P, Doc. 17.

February 6, 2006


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 1, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order requiring defendants to provide plaintiff law library access at least two (2) hours per day.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who "demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor." Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff "must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury."Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff "shows no chance of success on the merits." Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff "must demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation." Id.

With respect to law library access, a preliminary injunction does not serve the purpose of ensuring that plaintiff is able to litigate this action effectively or efficiently. A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Because of this limited jurisdiction, as a threshold and preliminary matter the court must have before it for consideration a "case" or "controversy."Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). If the court does not have a "case" or "controversy" before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F. 2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). The issuance of the orders sought by plaintiff in his motions would not remedy any of the claims alleged in this action. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders.

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed February 1, 2006, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Garcia v. McGuinnes

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 6, 2006
Case No. CV-F-05-1275 OWW DLB P, Doc. 17 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2006)
Case details for

Garcia v. McGuinnes

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. McGUINNES, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 6, 2006

Citations

Case No. CV-F-05-1275 OWW DLB P, Doc. 17 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2006)