Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05645/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05645-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES KEEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMY NOBLE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04-5645 AWI WMW P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 38)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff, James Keen (“Plaintiff”), is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s first

amendment right to practice his religion by denying Plaintiff a Runestone set. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

72-302.

On March 8, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. The Findings and

Recommendations contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within ten days. On March 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, generally, when a prisoner is transferred from the

prison whose policy he is challenging, any claim for injunctive relief becomes moot. Dilley v.

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 42 Filed 03/29/06 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

27

28

2

Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 877 (9th Cir.

1986). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against Taft officials has become moot

because Plaintiff is now incarcerated at U.S.P. Atwater. In the objections, Plaintiff claims that

his claims against the BOP defendants are not moot because their actions have resulted in

Plaintiff being denied a Runestone Set. In Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2001), the

Ninth Circuit found injunctive relief was not moot as a result of a prison transfer because the

plaintiff had claimed the same policy makers set the policy for both institutions. Id. at 897.

Despite the fact injunctive relief against the BOP defendants may be available despite

Plaintiff’s transfer, the court finds injunctive relief should not be granted at this time. The court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has not linked the BOP defendants to the

allegedly unconstitutional policies. Liability in civil rights cases only against persons who

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation

of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another's act or omits to perform an act

he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It is not clear from the

complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction which BOP officials Plaintiff believes are

responsible for the regulations prohibiting Runestone Sets. Because Plaintiff has failed to link

the BOP defendants with some affirmative act or omission resulting in him being denied the

Runestone Set, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must be denied at this time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 8, 2006, are ADOPTED IN

FULL; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 42 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2