Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05090/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05090-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. MARQUEZ,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5090-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Docs. 38 and 55)

Plaintiff Tommy Holmes (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 April 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

was served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections were to be filed within

thirty days. (Doc. 55.) On May 9, 2005, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 65.) 

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.

This action is proceeding against defendant Marquez for allegedly holding plaintiff in a cell

for three days in November of 2001 at California State Prison-Corcoran under conditions that

violated the Eighth Amendment. In his motion, plaintiff seeks a transfer from CSP-Corcoran to

another institution due to safety concerns. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the Court has

no jurisdiction to grant the order sought because the order would not remedy the claim at issue in

Case 1:03-cv-05090-AWI -SMS Document 86 Filed 08/22/05 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

this action. Rivera v. Freeman, 469 F. 2d 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 1972). Furthermore, plaintiff’s

motion has now been rendered moot following plaintiff’s transfer to the California State PrisonSacramento in May of 2005. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore,

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 8, 2005, is adopted in full; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminaryinjunctive relief, filed January 5, 2005, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05090-AWI -SMS Document 86 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2