Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05645/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05645-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES KEEN,

Plaintiff,

 vs. CV F 04 5645 AWI WMW P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION (DOC 15 )

AMY NOBLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit for alleged conduct that occurred while plaintiff was

housed at the U.S. Penitentiary at Atwater. Plaintiff claims he was denied his right to the free

exercise of his religious belief in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff is currently housed

at the U.S. Penitentiary at Lompoc.. 

Plaintiff’s essentially seeks an order prohibiting the conduct alleged in the

complaint. When an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 38 Filed 03/08/06 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

2

he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to

those conditions. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948

F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff is now incarcerated at a different facility. Though plaintiff does name

U.S. Bureau of Prison officials not employed at U.S.P. Atwater, he does not reference any

specific conduct by these officials in his motion for injunctive relief. Rather, plaintiff refers to

“defendants” in general. The alleged conduct that gives rise to this lawsuit occurred while

plaintiff was housed at Atwater.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief 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 Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

ten 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 reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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 (9th Cir. 1998). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05645-AWI-WMW Document 38 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2