Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02750/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02750-24/pdf.json

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEON OWENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH DEGAZIO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-2750 JAM KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed 

November 1, 2019. (ECF No. 138.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends 

that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied.

In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison 

(“PBSP”) denied him access to the law library and legal materials. Plaintiff requests that the 

court order PBSP officials to grant him adequate access to the law library and legal materials.

On January 29, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he is no 

longer housed at PBSP. (ECF No. 152.) Plaintiff is now housed at California State PrisonSacramento (“CSP-Sac”).

When an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is 

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

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 155 Filed 02/21/20 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

conditions. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 

1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion should be denied as moot.

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

relief (ECF No. 138) 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 fourteen 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 response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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: February 21, 2020

Ow2750.pi

Case 2:16-cv-02750-JAM-KJN Document 155 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 2