Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290-6/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. 

On December 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing prison officials at 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to relinquish his personal and legal 

property. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary injunction. 

I.

DISCUSSION

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may 

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. BRANDON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

COURT ORDER TO RELINQUISH HIS 

PERSONAL AND LEGAL PROPERTY

[ECF No. 32]

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 33 Filed 12/31/15 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

only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 

an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian 

Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court 

does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. 

Id. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s caseor-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. Requests for 

prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than 

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 

correct the violation of the Federal right.”

 This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation against Defendant Brandon. In the 

instant motion, Plaintiff contends that he was transferred to Corcoran State Prison on June 17, 2015, 

and his legal and personal property was not delivered with him. Injunctive relief may not be based on 

due process claim for loss of property, which does not appear in the complaint and is not subject to 

this action. A “request for injunctive relief by itself does not state a cause of action and is properly 

raised as a separate motion.” Mbaba v. Indymac Federal Bank F.S.B., 2010 WL 424363, at *4 (E.D. 

Cal. 2010). “An injunction is a remedy, not a separate claim or cause of action. A pleading can ... 

request injunctive relief in connection with a substantive claim, but a separately pled claim or cause of 

action for injunctive relief is inappropriate. Jensen v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 

1183, 1201 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Because Plaintiff is not proceeding on a claim of retaliation only, the 

Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff, and his motion must be denied. 

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

injunctive relief, filed December 28, 2015, be DENIED.

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 33 Filed 12/31/15 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

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

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

after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

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

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 33 Filed 12/31/15 Page 3 of 3