Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00567/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00567-3/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 Steve Mattson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 19, 2013. 

By separate order, Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend.

 In conjunction with his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction to ensure that he receives necessary medical care. He states that he is 

being denied access to an orthopedic specialist and pain management since his arrival at Kern Valley 

State Prison.

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

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation and 

quotation marks omitted). For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish 

standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation 

omitted); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 

STEVE MATTSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv0567 AWI DLB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

TEMOPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 13 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 3
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

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, 129 S.Ct. at 1149 (quotation marks and 

citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Further, 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 a separate order issued concurrently with this order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 

complaint with leave to amend. Until Plaintiff files an amended complaint and the Court is able to 

determine which claims are cognizable and appropriately raised in this action, the Court lacks 

jurisdiction to issue any preliminary injunctions. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 

1149; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

RECOMMENDATION

For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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 thirty (30) days after 

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 

court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 13 Filed 06/26/13 Page 2 of 3
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

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, 1157 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 13 Filed 06/26/13 Page 3 of 3