Opinion
1:15-cv-01148-GSA-PC
07-27-2015
SCOTT K. RICKS, Plaintiff, v. O. ONYEJE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. 4.)
I. BACKGROUND
Scott J. Ricks ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this case on July 24, 2015, together with a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 1, 4.)
II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. Thus, "[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court." Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).
Discussion
Plaintiff requests an order requiring defendants to refrain from administering medical treatment to Plaintiff or participating in Plaintiff's inmate appeals. Plaintiff also requests a court order enabling him to be seen by a surgeon for hernia repair surgery.
Moreover, "[A] federal court may [only] issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court." Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Because none of the defendants have appeared in this action, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order prohibiting any of them from acting against Plaintiff or requiring them to act on Plaintiff's behalf. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion must be denied at this juncture. Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed July 24, 2015, is DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27 , 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE