Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00328/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00328-6/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 

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

CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v. 

P. HUDSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0328 DAD CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

I. Background 

On July 18, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Because plaintiff fails 

to identify the relief sought in his motion for a preliminary injunction, the court issued findings 

and recommendations on October 24, 2022, recommending that the motion be denied. On 

January 25, 2023, the district court declined to adopt this court’s recommendation. The district 

court indicated that after review of plaintiff’s amended complaint, which had been dismissed with 

leave to amend on November 4, 2022, by this court, and plaintiff’s objections to the court’s 

recommendation that the motion for a preliminary injunction be denied, the preliminary 

injunctive relief requested by plaintiff was sufficiently clear:

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 19 Filed 02/03/23 Page 1 of 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 

2

[I]n his objections, plaintiff now provides some elaboration and 

description of the [mental health] care he is allegedly being denied 

and that he requests the court order defendants to provide him, 

including: “psychotherapy, psychological analytical therapy, 

psychological group therapy, and life skill therapy that teach[es] 

trauma subjects skills, and techniques on how to survive after 

trauma.” (Id. at 6.) According to plaintiff, defendants denied plaintiff 

this therapy even though “[t]his type of therapy is the type of therapy 

plaintiff was assured he would receive in August 2022” based on a 

recommendation from his Interdisciplinary Treatment Team. (Id.) 

Thus, the undersigned finds it appropriate to refer plaintiff’s motion 

back to the assigned magistrate judge for renewed consideration in 

light of plaintiff’s clarification of the relief he is requesting in his 

pending motion for a preliminary injunction. 

II. Legal Standards

A motion for preliminary injunction is rendered moot by the dismissal of the complaint. See

e.g. Performance Designed Products LLC v. Plantronics, Inc., No.: 3:19-cv-00536-GPC-LL, 2019 

WL 3082160, at * 8 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2019) (motion for preliminary injunction rendered moot 

by dismissal of operative complaint with leave to amend); Silvas v. G.E. Money Bank, 449 F. 

App'x 641, 645 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because the operative complaint has been dismissed, we dismiss 

this interlocutory appeal [for preliminary injunctive relief] as moot.”). 

III. Analysis 

 In this case, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was rendered moot by the 

dismissal of the operative complaint. ECF No. 13. Although plaintiff has now filed a proposed 

second amended complaint, ECF No. 16, it has not yet been screened. A cursory review of the 

second amended complaint, however, indicates that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction 

should still be denied as plaintiff again fails to state a claim upon which injunctive relief can be 

granted. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsil, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (plaintiff 

seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show likelihood of success on merits of underlying 

claim). In order to obtain injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show 

that substantial and immediate irreparable injury is likely and that legal remedies are inadequate. 

LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1333 (9th Cir. 1985). 

In his second amended complaint plaintiff names three mental health professional 

defendants. Essentially, plaintiff seeks damages for past wrongs occurring as recently as 2019. 

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 19 Filed 02/03/23 Page 2 of 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 

3

Near the end of the second amended complaint, however, plaintiff asserts he seeks “relief in the 

form of being able to access individual / group psychoanalytical therapy that treat[s] his suicidal 

and depressive symptoms.” 

While it may be plaintiff’s allegation that he is suffering from mental health treatment that 

violates the Eighth Amendment as a result of the past wrongs of defendants, the facts alleged by 

plaintiff in his second amended complaint do not indicate as much. First, plaintiff does not 

provide enough information about his condition or as to what treatment he is currently receiving, 

making it is impossible for this court to conclude that a violation of his constitutional rights is 

immediate. In order to allege an adequate basis for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment 

with respect to medical care, plaintiff would have to point to facts indicating at least deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976), and he has 

not done that. Also, plaintiff does not adequately show that his current treatment is limited 

because of any of the actions taken by defendants in 2019. That being the case, plaintiff’s claims 

against defendants for past wrongs cannot provide a basis for current injunctive relief. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 11) be denied. 

 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, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991). 

Dated: February 2, 2023 

1 

spri0328.pi(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 19 Filed 02/03/23 Page 3 of 3