Opinion
No. 2:17-cv-1205 CKD P
01-31-2018
NICHOLAS PATRICK, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 5.) He requests an order preventing defendant Pierce, who is a correctional officer at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP), from entering the building where plaintiff was presumably housed at the time he filed the motion. (Id. at 1.) However, plaintiff has since notified the court in one of his other cases that he was transferred from MCSP to California State Prison, Corcoran. Patrick v. Ross, No. 2:17-cv-0720 GEB CKD, ECF No. 10 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2017). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's inmate locator website confirms this transfer. Since plaintiff is no longer housed at the prison where defendant Pierce is employed, and he has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of being transferred back to MCSP, his request for injunctive relief is moot and should be denied. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[W]hen a prisoner is moved from a prison, his action will usually become moot as to conditions at that particular facility" (citing Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995)); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (claims for injunctive relief related to conditions of confinement were moot where prisoner was transferred to another facility and "demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning to [the original facility]." (citing Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986))).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 5) be denied as moot.
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)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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). Dated: January 31, 2018
/s/_________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13:patr1205.PI.f&r