Opinion
Case No. 1:05-CV-01554-OWW-SMS-P, (Doc. 6).
February 22, 2006
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED
Plaintiff John E. West ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting Medical Technical Assistant Brewer from having contact, physical or otherwise, with inmates and from acting to the detriment of inmates.
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.
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 Court has not yet screened Plaintiff's complaint and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief. Accordingly, assuming for the sake of argument that the Court could issue the order sought by Plaintiff, the Court is unable to issue the order at this time.
Further, even if the Court had already determined that Plaintiff's complaint stated cognizable claims, "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A party seeking a preliminary injunction cannot prevail where, as here, the motion for relief is unsupported by any evidence showing that the movant is entitled to the relief sought.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed January 9, 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.