Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00602/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00602-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

S. SWEIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0602 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 18) and has filed a motion for 

issuance of a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction 

of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local 

Rule 305(a). ECF No. 5. 

I. Motion to Amend 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint and a first amended complaint. ECF 

Nos. 17, 18. In screening the original complaint, plaintiff was given the option to amend the 

complaint. ECF No. 13. Since plaintiff has already been given permission to amend the 

complaint, the motion to amend is denied as moot. 

II. Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 

 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. In this motion, plaintiff 

Case 2:15-cv-00602-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

claims that he is not receiving appropriate mental health care and that he is in danger from gang 

members who have already attempted to kill him on the orders of correctional staff. ECF No. 20. 

He requests that he be transferred out of segregated housing, be placed in a mental health unit, 

and have no contact with a number of non-defendant officers. Id. 

A. Standards for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order 

A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary measure of relief that a federal court 

may impose without notice to the adverse party if, in an affidavit or verified complaint, the 

movant “clearly show[s] that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). The 

purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a fuller 

hearing. The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for 

issuing a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 

832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining orders and 

preliminary injunctions is “substantially identical”). 

In order to prevail on a motion for injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate 

that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 

absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that the relief 

sought is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that injunctive relief may issue, even if the moving party cannot show 

a likelihood of success on the merits, if “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of 

hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, 

so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the 

injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 

1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Under either formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief 

should be denied if the probability of success on the merits is low. Johnson v. California State 

Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips 

decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-00602-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

a fair chance of success on the merits.’” (quoting Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 

675 (9th Cir. 1984))). 

Plaintiff cannot show any chance of success on the merits because the allegations and 

relief requested in his motion for a temporary restraining order are unrelated to the allegations in 

the first amended complaint.1

B. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction 

A district court has no authority to grant relief in the form of a temporary restraining order 

or permanent injunction where it has no jurisdiction over the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon 

Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the 

jurisdiction of a district . . . court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an 

adjudication.”) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation omitted); Paccar Int’l, Inc. 

v. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K., 757 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1985) (vacating district 

court’s order granting preliminary injunction for lack of personal jurisdiction). As the court 

explained in denying plaintiff’s previous request for a temporary restraining order, the complaint 

in this case has yet to be served and even if it had been, none of the officers identified by plaintiff 

in his motion for a temporary restraining order have been named as defendants in this case. ECF 

No. 13 at 10-11. Plaintiff also provides no specific facts to show that these individuals were 

acting “in active concert or participation” with defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Zenith Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (“[A] nonparty with notice cannot be 

held in contempt until shown to be in concert or participation.”). “A federal court may issue an 

injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 

claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. 

United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Because the court lacks 

jurisdiction over the individuals against whom plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the motion must be 

denied. 

//// 

 

1

 The claims in the first amended complaint (and the original complaint) deal with an alleged 

excessive use of force in August 2014. 

Case 2:15-cv-00602-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

C. Plaintiff’s Request is Defective 

Federal Rule 65(b)(1) permits issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice to 

the adverse party only if: 

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly 

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will 

result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in 

opposition; and 

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to 

give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 

Plaintiff has not provided the certification required by this rule, and as already addressed, the 

individuals identified by plaintiff are not defendants to this action and there is no indication they 

have been served with the motion. ECF No. 20. 

D. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, the motion for a temporary restraining order must be 

denied. However, in the motion plaintiff claims that he is receiving inadequate mental health care 

related to two recent suicide attempts and homicidal ideation towards staff. Id. He also alleges 

that he was the victim of an attempted stabbing by a Hispanic gang member and that he is still at 

risk. Id. Given the seriousness of plaintiff’s claims, the court will order service of this order and 

the motion for a temporary restraining order on Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson, who 

shall ensure that within twenty-four hours of receiving this order plaintiff’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order is forwarded to the appropriate mental health and correctional staff at 

the institution where plaintiff is incarcerated. No response to the motion will be required. If 

plaintiff wants to pursue an action related to the claims in his motion for a temporary restraining 

order, he will need to initiate a new complaint in a separate action. 

III. Summary 

 The motion to amend the complaint is denied as unnecessary because the court has 

already given plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. 

 The motion for a temporary restraining order is denied because none of the people 

plaintiff wants a temporary restraining order against are defendants and the claims are not related 

to the complaint so plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits. If plaintiff wants 

Case 2:15-cv-00602-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 04/28/16 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

to pursue the claims in his motion for a temporary restraining order, he will need to file a separate 

lawsuit. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 18) is denied as moot. 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 20) is denied. 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and the motion for a 

temporary restraining order (ECF No. 20) on Monica Anderson, Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General. 

 4. Within twenty-four hours of receiving this order, Deputy Attorney General Monica 

Anderson shall forward the motion for a temporary restraining order to the appropriate mental 

health and correctional staff at the institution where plaintiff is incarcerated. No response to the 

motion is required. 

DATED: April 27, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00602-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 04/28/16 Page 5 of 5