Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01049/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01049-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH BRIDGEWATER,

aka ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 1049 LJO WMW PC 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE MOTION 

 FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOC 25)

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation and CSP Sacramento, seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order directing

officials at High Desert State Prison to provide him with law library access. Subsequently,

Plaintiff was transferred to CSP Sacramento. Further, this action proceeds against correctional

officials at CSP Corcoran for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights while Plaintiff was

housed at CSP Corcoran. The court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties to be

enjoined; it may not enjoin defendants not yet served or before the court. Zepeda v. United

States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9 Cir. 1983). Further, When an inmate seeks injunctive or th

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. See Weinstein v. Bradford,

423 U.S. 147 (1975); Enrico's, Inc. v. Rice, 730 F.2d 1250, 1255 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Case 1:06-cv-01049-LJO -WMW Document 41 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive

relief be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fifteen

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.” Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of

fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within

th

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01049-LJO -WMW Document 41 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2