Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290-14/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.) 

On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff contends that 

from December 2015 to February 2016, several officers assaulted him. Officers Anaya, Tapia, and 

Wilson refused to process his legal mail, illegally opened his legal mail and read it on the tier, denied 

him seventeen dinners, nine showers, cleaning supplies, forms and/or hygiene items because Plaintiff 

is suing Brandon and others. Officer Anaya passed out Plaintiff’s sex offender charges to multiple 

inmates and paid them contraband to viciously attack him which happened twice of Anaya’s watch. 

Plaintiff further contends he was pepper sprayed and threatened by a lieutenant and captain to “dismiss 

your lawsuit.” Plaintiff seeks a no-contact order for several prison officials along with removal from 

Corcoran State Prison. 

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. BRANDON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF No. 49]

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 55 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

First, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this action and to Plaintiff’s 

claim for retaliation and damages against Defendant Brandon arising on or about June 2013. See, e.g., 

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998) (“[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.”) (citation 

omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.”) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Second, when an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning 

the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer 

subjected to those conditions. Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2012); Nelson v. 

Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson 

v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). In this instance, subsequent to the filing to the filing of 

his present motion, Plaintiff was transferred and is now housed at California Correctional Institution in 

Tehachapi, California. Thus, because Plaintiff is not presently housed at Corcoran State Prison, his 

request that the named officials stop retaliating against him is moot. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction must be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 55 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 2