Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00551-4/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

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 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 motion for a preliminary injunction, filed November 4, 

2016. 

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, 24 (2008). “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. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 

plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (emphasis added).

MICHAEL PURTUE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

B. KEARNES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF No. 20]

Case 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 11/10/16 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. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield v. United 

States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). “[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. 555, 560-61 (1992). 

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. 

In the instant motion, Plaintiff contends that he was “placed on a camera device and labeled a 

snitch in retaliation for exercising his protected rights by filing a lawsuit.” Plaintiff contends that 

prison officials deliberately exposed him to harm at the hands of other inmates by telling inmates that 

Plaintiff is a snitch thereby placing Plaintiff’s life in danger of retaliation by those inmates. Plaintiff 

further contends that Warden K. Holland has placed a camera device on him and everyone “can see 

me in my cell and everywhere I go, and they are able to tell what I’m thinking when I have a thought 

and it can tell what I’m feeling and much more. I don’t know the names of these devices or their full 

capabilities.” (Mot. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction is ensure that prison officials cease 

violating his constitutional rights. 

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s allegations that due to a racial conflict between Plaintiff 

and Mexican inmates, officers gave inmates Plaintiff’s property and exposed his transcripts over the 

tier to appease the Mexican inmates to resolve the conflict. Plaintiff contends Defendants Rizer, 

Eberle, Meyers, Emerson, Sanchez, Chavez, Mello, Lundy, and Magallance deliberately took his trial 

transcripts and circulated them to inmates in order to spread the rumor that Plaintiff was a “snitch” and 

a “rat.” 

The pendency of this case does not provide Plaintiff with standing to seek relief directed at 

remedying his current conditions of confinement, which are occurring at a different prison and which 

involve different prison employees. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Lujan, 504 U.S. at

Case 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 11/10/16 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

560-61; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. The Court does not have jurisdiction over prison officials at 

Pelican Bay State Prison who are not defendants in this action and it cannot issue the order Plaintiff 

seeks. Summers, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Mayfield, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 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, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction be DENIED.

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

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

being served with this 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: November 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 3