Joshua Mason v. Kenneth Lalas, et al.

Background

Joshua Mason, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative third amended complaint concerns allegations related to his January 6, 2022, knee surgery, including alleged failures to provide a lower bunk, a lower tier without stairs, proper wound care, and transportation accommodations.

The court had previously denied Mason’s first motion for an injunction. It also had granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss and had allowed Mason until November 3, 2025, to file a fourth amended complaint presenting additional allegations against Yeh and Lara. Mason did not file that amendment by the deadline, but he filed a second motion for injunctive relief.

Second Motion for Injunctive Relief

Mason alleged that he was being denied access to the law library, that people were interfering with his food, that staff would not provide camera footage, that he could not have his water tested, that he lacked privacy and believed there was a hidden camera, that safety concerns were ignored, and that he was denied proper medical care for several conditions. He sought an order requiring a subpoena for camera footage and a transfer to another facility.

The court explained that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain one, a plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest.

The court denied the motion because Mason did not provide evidence that any defendant in this case was responsible for the alleged conduct, and the allegations were not part of the existing case. The court also held that, even assuming the defendants were responsible, Mason’s brief and general statements did not show likely success or irreparable harm. Regarding medical issues, he did not explain what care had been denied or what relief he wanted the court to order.

Camera Footage and Deadline

The court denied Mason’s request for a subpoena because the camera footage did not appear related to the issues in this case. The court stated that Mason could request relevant footage from the defendants through discovery, the process for obtaining evidence in a case, and could request a subpoena if discovery did not produce it. If the footage concerned different claims, the court stated that Mason could file a new civil-rights case.

The court granted Mason’s request to extend the deadline for filing a fourth amended complaint. The new deadline is December 22, 2025. The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint by that date will result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims against Yeh and Lara.

Disposition

Mason’s second motion for injunctive relief was DENIED. His request for an extension of time to file a fourth amended complaint was GRANTED. The court also stated that claims based on the events described in the second motion should be pursued, if at all, in a new civil-rights action.