Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290-17/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Durrell A. Puckett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties have consented to United States magistrate judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 46.) This action is proceeding against Defendant K. Brandon for retaliation 

in violation of the First Amendment, and is scheduled for a jury trial on October 11, 2016.

On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing prison officials to provide 

an adequate mental health care evaluation. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and the Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue any orders regarding 

Plaintiff‟s current conditions of confinement, including his mental health status, 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 

///

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. BRANDON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00290-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION FOR 

COURT ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE 

MENTAL HEALTH CARE EVALUATION

[ECF No. 58]

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 61 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

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

injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield v. United States, 599 

F.3d at 969. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article 

III‟s case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env‟t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998); 

accord Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560-61. This requires Plaintiff to “show that he is 

under threat of suffering an „injury in fact‟ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual 

and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the 

defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

 Plaintiff‟s claim that officers at Corcoran State Prison are denying him appropriate mental 

health evaluation and transfer to a different prison cannot provide the basis for a preliminary 

injunction in this action because it is a new assertion of mistreatment entirely different from the 

retaliation claim in this action against Defendant Brandon. In addition, Plaintiff has no substantive 

liberty interest in being housed in a particular prison. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); 

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976). The pendency of this case does not provide Plaintiff 

with standing to seek relief directed at remedying his current conditions of confinement, which 

involve different circumstances and different prison employees. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation 

omitted); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff‟s inability to meet the 

“irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” with respect to the relief he seeks is fatal to his 

motion. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61). Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s 

motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 61 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‟s motion for a court order to 

provide him an adequate mental health evaluation is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 61 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 3