(PC) Purtue v. Langhardt et al, No. 1:2015cv00551 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.