Purtue v. Kearnes et al

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 20 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be DENIED re 8 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/9/2016. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL PURTUE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
B. KEARNES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ECF No. 20]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed November 4,

19
20

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Michael Purtue is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2016.

21

I.

22

DISCUSSION

23

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

24

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction

25

must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in

26

the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

27

in the public interest.” Id. at 20. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the

28

plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (emphasis added).
1

1

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must demonstrate he has standing to seek preliminary

2

injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield v. United

3

States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability

4

constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal

5

jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,

6

523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998); accord Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

7

This requires Plaintiff to “show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete

8

and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be

9

fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial

10

decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff contends that he was “placed on a camera device and labeled a

11
12

snitch in retaliation for exercising his protected rights by filing a lawsuit.” Plaintiff contends that

13

prison officials deliberately exposed him to harm at the hands of other inmates by telling inmates that

14

Plaintiff is a snitch thereby placing Plaintiff’s life in danger of retaliation by those inmates. Plaintiff

15

further contends that Warden K. Holland has placed a camera device on him and everyone “can see

16

me in my cell and everywhere I go, and they are able to tell what I’m thinking when I have a thought

17

and it can tell what I’m feeling and much more. I don’t know the names of these devices or their full

18

capabilities.” (Mot. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction is ensure that prison officials cease

19

violating his constitutional rights.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s allegations that due to a racial conflict between Plaintiff

20
21

and Mexican inmates, officers gave inmates Plaintiff’s property and exposed his transcripts over the

22

tier to appease the Mexican inmates to resolve the conflict. Plaintiff contends Defendants Rizer,

23

Eberle, Meyers, Emerson, Sanchez, Chavez, Mello, Lundy, and Magallance deliberately took his trial

24

transcripts and circulated them to inmates in order to spread the rumor that Plaintiff was a “snitch” and

25

a “rat.”

26

The pendency of this case does not provide Plaintiff with standing to seek relief directed at

27

remedying his current conditions of confinement, which are occurring at a different prison and which

28

involve different prison employees. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Lujan, 504 U.S. at
2

1

560-61; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. The Court does not have jurisdiction over prison officials at

2

Pelican Bay State Prison who are not defendants in this action and it cannot issue the order Plaintiff

3

seeks. Summers, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s

4

inability to meet the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” with respect to the relief he

5

seeks is fatal to his motion. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

6
7

injunction be DENIED.

8

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

9

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

10

being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the

11

Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

12

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

13

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

14

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

November 9, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3