Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01131/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01131-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENICIO VELAQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. ROBUSTELLI,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-1131 JAM CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant is a Correctional Officer at the California Medical Facility. 

On December 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court order that defendant not be 

permitted to work where plaintiff is housed. After plaintiff filed his motion, he was transferred 

to California State Prison, Sacramento. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is moot. Preiser v. 

Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975). Plaintiff argues the transfer was actually an act of 

retaliation for the filing of this lawsuit. While plaintiff might have basis to initiate a separate civil 

action based upon his transfer, is does not change the conclusion that plaintiff’s request for 

injunctive relief is moot.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion 

for a “restraining order” (ECF No. 20) be denied.

/////

Case 2:16-cv-01131-JAM-CKD Document 32 Filed 03/27/17 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

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 served and filed 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: March 27, 2017

1

vela1131.tro

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01131-JAM-CKD Document 32 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 2