Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00157-BAM PC
01-01-2012
HECTOR LEONEL PICART, Plaintiff, v. A. ENONMEH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS MOOT
(ECF No. 21)
Plaintiff Hector Leonel Picart ("Plaintiff"), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on January 28, 2011. On May 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed an affidavit requesting a preliminary injunction directing that he be transferred to the California Medical Facility State Prison. On December 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address which indicates that he has been released from custody.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations on injunctive relief. Section 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, "[p]rospective 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).
Additionally, when an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). Since Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, the injunctive relief he is seeking is moot.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, filed May 5, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE