Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01048/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01048-10/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 MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED

(Doc. 38)

FIFTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Brady K. Armstrong, a former 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. On June 18, 

2014, Plaintiff, who is on parole, filed another motion seeking an order mandating prison officials 

release his personal property to him.1 Construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, the 

motion must be denied. 

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must demonstrate he has standing to seek preliminary 

injunctive relief. 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). “[The] triad of injury in fact,

causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, 

and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel 

Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998); Lujan v. Defenders 

 

1

Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to comply with any deadlines, but at this juncture, there are no pending 

deadlines.

Case 1:13-cv-01048-DAD-SKO Document 40 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 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

2

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992). 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; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

This action arises out of the violation of Plaintiff’s federal rights in 2012 by D. Pelayo, a 

correctional officer at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in 

Corcoran, California, and the pendency of this case does not provide Plaintiff with standing to 

seek relief directed at obtaining his personal property following his recent release from prison. 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 

969. Plaintiff’s inability to meet the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” with 

respect to the relief he seeks is fatal to his motion. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 

injunctive relief 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 

fifteen (15) 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 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: August 1, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01048-DAD-SKO Document 40 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 2