(PC) Springfield v. Hudson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, No. 2:22-cv-0328 DAD CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 P. HUDSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 18 rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 I. Background 21 On July 18, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Because plaintiff fails 22 to identify the relief sought in his motion for a preliminary injunction, the court issued findings 23 and recommendations on October 24, 2022, recommending that the motion be denied. On 24 January 25, 2023, the district court declined to adopt this court’s recommendation. The district 25 court indicated that after review of plaintiff’s amended complaint, which had been dismissed with 26 leave to amend on November 4, 2022, by this court, and plaintiff’s objections to the court’s 27 recommendation that the motion for a preliminary injunction be denied, the preliminary 28 injunctive relief requested by plaintiff was sufficiently clear: 1 [I]n his objections, plaintiff now provides some elaboration and description of the [mental health] care he is allegedly being denied 2 and that he requests the court order defendants to provide him, including: “psychotherapy, psychological analytical therapy, 3 psychological group therapy, and life skill therapy that teach[es] trauma subjects skills, and techniques on how to survive after 4 trauma.” (Id. at 6.) According to plaintiff, defendants denied plaintiff this therapy even though “[t]his type of therapy is the type of therapy 5 plaintiff was assured he would receive in August 2022” based on a recommendation from his Interdisciplinary Treatment Team. (Id.) 6 Thus, the undersigned finds it appropriate to refer plaintiff’s motion back to the assigned magistrate judge for renewed consideration in 7 light of plaintiff’s clarification of the relief he is requesting in his pending motion for a preliminary injunction. 8 9 II. Legal Standards 10 A motion for preliminary injunction is rendered moot by the dismissal of the complaint. See 11 e.g. Performance Designed Products LLC v. Plantronics, Inc., No.: 3:19-cv-00536-GPC-LL, 2019 12 WL 3082160, at * 8 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2019) (motion for preliminary injunction rendered moot 13 by dismissal of operative complaint with leave to amend); Silvas v. G.E. Money Bank, 449 F. 14 App'x 641, 645 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because the operative complaint has been dismissed, we dismiss 15 this interlocutory appeal [for preliminary injunctive relief] as moot.”). 16 III. Analysis 17 In this case, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was rendered moot by the 18 dismissal of the operative complaint. ECF No. 13. Although plaintiff has now filed a proposed 19 second amended complaint, ECF No. 16, it has not yet been screened. A cursory review of the 20 second amended complaint, however, indicates that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction 21 should still be denied as plaintiff again fails to state a claim upon which injunctive relief can be 22 granted. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsil, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (plaintiff 23 seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show likelihood of success on merits of underlying 24 claim). In order to obtain injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show 25 that substantial and immediate irreparable injury is likely and that legal remedies are inadequate. 26 LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1333 (9th Cir. 1985). 27 In his second amended complaint plaintiff names three mental health professional 28 defendants. Essentially, plaintiff seeks damages for past wrongs occurring as recently as 2019. 1 | Near the end of the second amended complaint, however, plaintiff asserts he seeks “relief in the 2 || form of being able to access individual / group psychoanalytical therapy that treat[s] his suicidal 3 || and depressive symptoms.” 4 While it may be plaintiff’s allegation that he is suffering from mental health treatment that 5 || violates the Eighth Amendment as a result of the past wrongs of defendants, the facts alleged by 6 || plaintiff in his second amended complaint do not indicate as much. First, plaintiff does not 7 || provide enough information about his condition or as to what treatment he is currently receiving, 8 | making it is impossible for this court to conclude that a violation of his constitutional rights is 9 || immediate. In order to allege an adequate basis for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment 10 || with respect to medical care, plaintiff would have to point to facts indicating at least deliberate 11 || indifference to serious medical needs, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976), and he has 12 | not done that. Also, plaintiff does not adequately show that his current treatment is limited 13 || because of any of the actions taken by defendants in 2019. That being the case, plaintiffs claims 14 | against defendants for past wrongs cannot provide a basis for current injunctive relief. 15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion 16 || fora preliminary injunction (ECF No. 11) be denied. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 19 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 20 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 21 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 22 || time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 23 || Cir. 1991). 24 || Dated: February 2, 2023 / a8 } if | / p , Si 25 CAROLYNK DELANEY 2% spri0328.pi (2) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28