Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01747/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01747-6/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

DAVID SAFIDI CAUTHEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVERA et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12cv01747 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR COURT ORDER AS MOOT

(Document 26)

Plaintiff David Safidi Cauthen, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 26, 2012. The 

action is proceeding on (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Rivera, Negrete, Northcutt, Arreola, King and Waddle; (2) unreasonable search in violation of the 

Fourth and Eighth Amendments against Defendants Rivera, Negrete and Waddle; (3) deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant 

Mackey; and (4) violation of the First Amendment and RLUIPA against Defendants Rivera, Negrete 

and Waddle.

On August 22, 2013, Defendants Arreola, Mackey, Negrete, Northcutt, Rivera and Waddle 

filed a motion to dismiss. The motion is currently pending.

On September 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request that this Court order Warden Biter to locate 

and ship his personal property to his new place of incarceration. Plaintiff had only recently been 

Case 1:12-cv-01747-DLB Document 31 Filed 10/31/13 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

transferred, and filed the request prior to receiving responses to his informal and formal appeals. 

Plaintiff indicated that his legal property was necessary to allow him to file an opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed his opposition and did not indicate that his legal property 

had not been returned. Accordingly, in light of the fact that Plaintiff has been able to file an 

opposition on the merits and that his property has most likely been delivered, Plaintiff’s motion is 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:12-cv-01747-DLB Document 31 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 2