(PC) Puckett v. Moreno

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00650
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Case No. 2:22-cv-0650-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. MORENO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking permeant injunctive relief in the form of an order 19 mandating his transfer to another institution.1 ECF No. 97. For the reasons described below, I 20 will deny the motion. 21 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 22 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v. 23 Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 24 (1997) (per curiam)); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) 25 (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of 26 right”). Nonetheless, “federal courts must not shrink from their obligation to enforce the 27 1 Plaintiff filed an identical motion in Puckett v. Catlin, Case No. 2:23-cv-0210-DAD- 28 JDP, ECF No. 74 (E.D. Cal). 1 constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners,” and must not “allow constitutional 2 violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison 3 administration.” Porretti v. Dzurenda, 11 F.4th 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). 4 A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) he is likely to succeed on the 5 merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the 6 balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 7 U.S. at 20. The “balance of equities” concerns the burdens or hardships to a prisoner complainant 8 compared with the burden on the government defendants if an injunction is ordered. Id. The 9 public interest mostly concerns the injunction’s impact on nonparties. Id. (citation omitted). 10 Regardless, “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional 11 rights.” Id. (citation omitted). 12 Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than a prohibitory injunction, 13 injunctive relief is “subject to a higher standard” and is “permissible when ‘extreme or very 14 serious damage will result’ that is not ‘capable of compensation in damages,’ and the merits of 15 the case are not ‘doubtful.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 999 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 16 Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009)). 17 Further, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which applies here, injunctive relief must be 18 narrowly drawn and must be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. 19 § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 20 Plaintiff argues that since November 2024, he has been sexually assaulted four times, 21 beaten, transferred seven times in the past four months. ECF No. 97 at 1. He states correctional 22 officers and nurses have (1) played with his mail, packages, and money, (2) called him a rapist, 23 sex offender, child molester, pervert, jack off artistic, and (3) are going to set him up for incident 24 exposure in order to get him killed, beaten, stabbed, or jumped. Id. He argues that on April 5, he 25 was sexually assaulted and beaten while wearing handcuffs. Id. Plaintiff states that he needs to 26 be transferred to either federal or state jail. Id. He argues that all of these actions are done at the 27 bequest of former warden Gena Jones. Id. 28 First and foremost, plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction may 1 | be granted only after a final hearing on the merits, see MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Comput., Inc., 991 2 | F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (“As a general rule, a permanent injunction will be granted when 3 | liability has been established .. . .”), and at this point, there has been no such final determination. 4 But even if the court were to construe plaintiff's request as one seeking preliminary 5 | injunctive relief, he has failed to identify the requisite factors set forth in Winter, 555 U.S. 7. 6 | Consequently, plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that injunctive relief is 7 | warranted. See Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (‘An injunction 8 | is a matter of equitable discretion’ and is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 9 | upon aclear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’”) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 10 | 376, 381). 11 Plaintiff's motion further fails to show that he has a likelihood of success on the merits of 12 | this complaint. Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that when a court 13 || concludes that a movant has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court, in its 14 | discretion, need not consider whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury). In the 15 | operative complaint, plaintiff alleges that correctional officers at a prison other than that where he 16 | is now housed violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Pac. Radiation 17 | Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks 18 | injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority 19 | to issue an injunction.”). 20 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for permanent injunctive 21 relief, ECF No. 97, is DENIED. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ May 1, 2025 _———— 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28