Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01048/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01048-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. PELAYO,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01048-AWI-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION

(Docs. 5, 8, 16, and 17)

OBJECTION DEADLINE: TWENTY DAYS

Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 8, 2013. This action is 

proceeding against Defendant Pelayo, a correctional officer, for events which occurred in 2012 at

the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California.1 

(Docs. 1, 20.) Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s four motions for preliminary injunctive 

relief. Plaintiff seeks a court order prohibiting prison staff from tampering with his mail.

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the 

threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or 

controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983) (citations 

omitted). “Abstract injury is not enough.” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101. For each form of relief 

 

1

In a separate, concurrently-issued order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, with 

leave to amend.

Case 1:13-cv-01048-DAD-SKO Document 25 Filed 02/14/14 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

sought, Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 

129 S.Ct. 1142 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 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 (quotation marks 

and citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

Additionally, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison 

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a 

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless 

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

In this case, assuming Plaintiff is able to amend his complaint to state a viable claim for 

relief against Defendant Pelayo, the Court will have jurisdiction only over the parties to this action 

– Plaintiff and Correctional Officer Pelayo – and Plaintiff’s legal claim(s) at issue. The Court 

lacks jurisdiction to issue orders remedying the present alleged interference with Plaintiff’s mail,

and in no event may Plaintiff use this pending action as a springboard to obtain orders (1) directed 

at anyone other than Defendant Pelayo or (2) remedying any issue broader than Plaintiff’s 

cognizable legal claim(s).

Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the orders sought by Plaintiff and it 

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that his motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed on July 8, 

2013, July 22, 2013, and September 5, 2013, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

twenty (20) 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 

Case 1:13-cv-01048-DAD-SKO Document 25 Filed 02/14/14 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

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01048-DAD-SKO Document 25 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 3