Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00029/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00029-15/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

RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0029 GEB GGH P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 9, 2007, the court recommended that plaintiff’s requests for

injunctive relief contained in his September 17, 2007, motion for a temporary restraining order

and October 15, 2007, letter, be denied but for the claims concerning plaintiff’s access to grab

bars, treatment for back pain and post knee surgery complaints. The court ordered defendants to

file further briefing regarding these claims. On December 11, 2007, the Honorable Garland E.

Burrell adopted the November 9, 2007, findings and recommendations.

On November 19, 2007, defendants filed further briefing addressing the remaining

claims for injunctive relief. 

Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief concern medical care at Mule Creek State

Prison (MCSP). On November 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating

Case 2:07-cv-00029-GGH Document 66 Filed 12/21/07 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

that he had been transferred to High Desert State Prison (HDSP).

When an inmate seeks injunctive relief concerning an institution at which he is no

longer incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot. See Sample v. Borg, 870 F.2d 563

(9th Cir. 1989); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Reimers v.

Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has demonstrated no reasonable possibility

that he will be incarcerated at MCSP at any predictable time in the future. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motions should be denied as moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s remaining claims

for injunctive relief contained in his September 17, 2007, motion for a temporary restraining

order and October 15, 2007, letter concerning access to grab bars, treatment for back pain and

post knee surgery complaints 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

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 may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 12/21/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

an29.pi(2)

Case 2:07-cv-00029-GGH Document 66 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2