Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01680-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZURI S. YOUNG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1680 LKK KJM P

vs.

K.M. CHASTAIN, et al, ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. He has filed several motions, which are pending before the court.

I. Motion For Discovery

On February 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a “motion under F.R.C.P. #26(a) thru (f) et al;

Scope Of Discovery in the Support Thereof. . . .” (docket no. 55). This document does not

appear to be a motion to compel discovery, but rather seems to be a list of things plaintiff is

asking the defendants to produce. 

Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests

and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should

be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the

court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 65 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 4
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

shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. 

II. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application For Injunctive Relief And Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff seeks an order directing various defendants to refrain from retaliating

against him for his pursuit of this litigation (docket no. 56). He bases the motion on the

experience of other pro se plaintiffs and opines that “the course of this litigation will not run

smoothly without this order.” Ex Parte Application at 2. 

Plaintiff filed similar motions on November 26, 2003 and July 8, 2004. Both

were denied. Plaintiff’s current motion adds nothing more definite or concrete than his two prior

pleadings. Moreover, he seeks to enjoin the action of defendants Chastain, Lea, Flint, Blackburn,

Fields and Green, who are employees at California State Prison-Sacramento. Plaintiff is no

longer housed at that prison however; his pleading shows he is currently housed at Kern Valley

State Prison. 

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

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. 

In the order and findings and recommendations filed January 3, 2005, this court

made the same ruling in denying plaintiff’s request for temporary injunctive relief and

recommending that the request for a preliminary injunction be denied. In that same order, the

court warned plaintiff that he was subject to sanction should he continue to file frivolous

motions. Because plaintiff has filed such a motion, he will be directed to show cause why he

should not be subject to monetary sanctions.

III. Plaintiff’s Pretrial And Discovery Motion (Docket No. 64)

On April 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial And

Discovery Motion As Set Forth In Scheduling Order.” Because plaintiff refers to L.R. 16-281, it

appears that this is plaintiff’s pretrial statement rather than an order requesting any relief. Indeed,

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 65 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

plaintiff simply provides a short procedural history of the case and gives a summary of evidence

he intends to introduce at trial. Although the document is entitled a motion, the court will deem

it to be plaintiff’s pretrial statement. No action will be taken on it until the pretrial conference,

currently scheduled for July 14, 2006.

IV. Plaintiff’s Motion For An Order Permitting Him To Wear Civilian Clothing (Docket No. 54)

In the order of February 9, 2004, this court denied a similar motion without

prejudice, noting that such a motion is one to be raised before the district judge who will try the

case. This motion will again be denied without prejudice to it being raised at the trial

confirmation hearing. Should plaintiff continue to file such duplicative motions, he will be

subject to sanctions.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s February 2, 2006 motion for discovery is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s February 2, 2006 motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s February 2, 2006 motion for an order permitting him to wear

civilian clothing at trial is denied without prejudice.

4. Plaintiff’s April 3, 2006 “pretrial and discovery motion” is deemed to be

plaintiff’s pretrial statement.

5. Within fifteen days from the date of this order, plaintiff is to show cause why

he should not be subject to a $50 sanction for filing his February 2, 2006 motion for a temporary

restraining order and a preliminary injunction in light of this court’s finding on January 3, 2005,

that an essentially similar motion was frivolous.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s February 2, 2006

request for a preliminary injunction be denied. 

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, plaintiff may file

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 65 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: April 24, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

youn1680.mm

Case 2:03-cv-01680-LKK -KJM Document 65 Filed 04/26/06 Page 4 of 4