Purtue v. Kearnes et al
Filing
41
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/4/2017 recommending that 37 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be denied. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 2/6/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL PURTUE,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
B. KEARNES, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE
DENIED
[ECF No. 37]
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 third request for issuance of a preliminary injunction,
filed December 22, 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
In the instant motion, Plaintiff requests “that this court cease the violation of plaintiff
2
constitutional rights by Warden K. Holland and her Captains M. Bryant and B. Sanders because they
3
has [sic] been out to get the plaintiff since 2010 when the plaintiff filed his first administrative
4
appeal.” (Mot. at 1; ECF No. 37.) This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s allegations that due to a
5
racial conflict between Plaintiff and Mexican inmates, officers gave inmates Plaintiff’s property and
6
exposed his transcripts over the tier to appease the Mexican inmates to resolve the conflict. Plaintiff
7
contends Defendants Rizer, Eberle, Meyers, Emerson, Sanchez, Chavez, Mello, Lundy, and
8
Magallance deliberately took his trial transcripts and circulated them to inmates in order to spread the
9
rumor that Plaintiff was a “snitch” and a “rat.”
10
The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this action and to Plaintiff’s claim
11
for which this action is proceeding. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,
12
103-04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of
13
Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
14
burden of establishing its existence.”) (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v.
15
Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing
16
cases or controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court does not have
17
jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this suit, and the Court cannot issue the order
18
Plaintiff seeks. Summers, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).
19
Plaintiff’s inability to meet the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” with respect to the
20
relief he seeks is fatal to his motion. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-
21
61).
22
II.
23
RECOMMENDATION
24
25
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s third motion for
injunctive relief, filed on December 22, 2016, be DENIED.
26
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge
27
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after
28
being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with the
2
1
Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
2
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
3
result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
4
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated:
8
January 4, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?