Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00916/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00916-14/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE POLANCO DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-0916 KJM CSK P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleging that while he was 

housed at California State Prison, Sacramento, on December 21, 2020, plaintiff was subjected to 

retaliation by defendant Torcedo in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF Nos. 24, 25 

(screening order).) Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”)

in Stockton. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is before the court. 

As set forth below, plaintiff’s motion should be denied as moot.

Motion for Injunctive Relief

On March 22, 2024, plaintiff moved for injunctive relief against staff at CHCF, 

contending he is without access to his legal and personal property, and mail room staff denied 

plaintiff the ability to send legal mail without postage, despite his indigent status. (ECF No. 43.) 

Plaintiff was previously summoned to Los Angeles County for court proceedings. Thereafter, he 

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 51 Filed 04/17/24 Page 1 of 4
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

2

was transferred to North Kern State Prison, and then transferred to CHCF on October 20, 2023, 

due to his handicapped condition. (ECF No. 43 at 1.) Plaintiff’s personal and legal property was 

purportedly sent to CHCF on February 5, 2024. (Id.) As of March 14, 2024, plaintiff remained 

without his legal property. (ECF No. 43 at 2.) 

On April 8, 2024, defendant Torcedo filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion providing 

evidence that plaintiff’s legal materials were returned to him on March 20, 2024, and on March 

29, 2024, an additional two envelopes of what appeared to be legal materials were discovered in 

plaintiff’s personal property and returned to him the same day. (ECF Nos. 48, 48-1, 48-2 & 

48-3.) In addition, although the CHCF mailroom previously rejected plaintiff’s request to send 

certain discovery-related documents, on March 25, 2024, plaintiff was able to resend the 

documents, which defendant’s counsel received on March 29, 2024. (ECF No. 48-1 at 2.) Also, 

defendant’s counsel offered to replace plaintiff’s copies of the full docket in this action without 

charge, which plaintiff accepted. (ECF No. 48 at 2 n.1.) Because the alleged threat of harm no 

longer exists, defendant argues that the motion should be denied as moot.

Plaintiff did not file a reply. 

Governing Standards

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

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To qualify for injunctive relief, plaintiff 

must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that he will suffer 

irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an 

injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20. A deficiency in any element precludes relief. Id. at 

23.

As to the second element of Winter, an injunction “is unavailable absent a showing of 

irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or 

immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again -- a likelihood of substantial and 

immediate irreparable injury.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm. 

See Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). A presently 

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 51 Filed 04/17/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

existing actual threat must be shown, although the injury need not be certain to occur. Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130-31 (1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 

1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998). 

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion fails on the second element of Winter, which precludes relief. See

Winter, 555 U.S. at 23-24. Plaintiff did not rebut the evidence that he has received his legal 

materials and was able to re-send the documents previously rejected by CHCF mailroom staff. In 

addition, the court docket confirms that two documents were filed by plaintiff with the court on 

March 27, 2024, and each contained a proof of service signed by plaintiff on March 11, 2024. 

(ECF Nos. 45, 46.) Also, plaintiff was able to mail the instant motion on March 14, 2024. (ECF 

No. 43 at 4.) Further, plaintiff was recently granted an extension of time to rectify an incorrect 

address used for serving defendant’s counsel, which remedied any potential injury from the delay 

caused by the rejected mailing. (ECF No. 50.) Because plaintiff is no longer facing imminent 

injury to his access to the courts, his motion should be denied as moot.

Finally, the undersigned considered whether such circumstances might recur. See Murphy 

v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982) (an exception to the mootness doctrine applies if the same 

party could be subject to the same action again). Here, plaintiff provided no evidence that he is 

likely to be summoned again to Los Angeles County or that a prison transfer is imminent or 

anticipated in the near future. Plaintiff also failed to show that extensions of time would be 

insufficient to address any future deprivations. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied as 

moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 

relief (ECF No. 43) be denied as moot. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 51 Filed 04/17/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: April 17, 2024

/1/diaz0916.pi

Case 2:21-cv-00916-DC-CSK Document 51 Filed 04/17/24 Page 4 of 4