Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00634/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00634-2/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

RAFAEL ORDAZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAROLD TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-00634-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 9)

Plaintiff, Rafael Ordaz (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 23, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections

to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On June 5, 2007,

Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. On June 18,

2007, Plaintiff filed amended objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court denies the motion.

Case 1:07-cv-00634-BLW-MHW Document 14 Filed 07/30/07 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

27

28

2

“[T]hose who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the

threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or

controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983) (citations omitted); Jones

v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9 Cir. 2006). “[P]laintiff must show that he has th

sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the

challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate,

not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). When a

government agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own

internal affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9 Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v. th

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378-79 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state agency is involved, these

considerations are, in anything, strengthened because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d

at 1128.

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. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9 Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, th

1368 (9 Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9 Cir. 1991). The docket reveals th th

that on July 16, 2007, Plaintiff was transferred to Lancaster from Tehachapi. Because the

motion for a preliminary injunction concerns a prison where Plaintiff is no longer housed, the

pending motion is moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunctive relief, filed May 17, 2007, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00634-BLW-MHW Document 14 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 2