Rogers v. Swarthout

Full title: KENNETH ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 9, 2013

2:13-cv-1829 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2013)

Opinion

KENNETH ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Defendant. No. 2:13-cv-1829 KJN P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 9, 2013

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief precluding prison officials from transferring him to Pleasant Valley State Prison.

         On September 5, 2013, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not issue requiring defendant to retain plaintiff at California State Prison, Solano ("CSP-SOL"), pending resolution of plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. On September 6, 2013, the Deputy Attorney General, by special appearance, filed a response and declaration demonstrating that the decision to transfer plaintiff to Pleasant Valley State Prison was rescinded by the Unit Classification Committee ("UCC") on September 4, 2013. (ECF No. 9-1 at 2.) The UCC elected to retain plaintiff at CSP-SOL for the indefinite future. (Id.)

         Accordingly, the order to show cause is discharged, and plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is moot. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief should be denied without prejudice to its renewal should plaintiff's circumstances change.

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The September 5, 2013 order to show cause (ECF No. 8) is discharged; and 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case.

         IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 1) be denied without prejudice; and

2. This action be terminated.

         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)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).