Purtue v. Kearnes et al

Filing 34

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/16/2016 recommending that 30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction be denied. Referred to Judge Dale A Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 1/20/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MICHAEL PURTUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
B. KEARNES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE
DENIED
[ECF No. 30]

Plaintiff Michael Purtue is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to show cause why a preliminary injunction
should not be granted, filed December 7, 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.

11

In the instant motion, Plaintiff contends that Warden K. Holland and Captains M. Bryant and

12

B. Sanders “followed Plaintiff from prison to prison on a camera device and K. Holland used a brain

13

device that’s on my thoughts [sic] that tell you everything you did in your life.” (Mot. at 2.) This

14

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s allegations that due to a racial conflict between Plaintiff and

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

a “rat.”

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

seeks is fatal to his motion. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).

28

///
2

1

II.

2

RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

3
4

injunction, filed December 7, 2016, be DENIED.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

December 16, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3