Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01238-12/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

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1238 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. FLINT, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 21, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for

injunctive relief claiming that defendant Holmes ordered his transfer from C facility at California

State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sac) to B facility at CSP-Sac in retaliation for his filing of this

lawsuit. On January 17, 2007, defendants filed a response to this motion. On February 9, 2007,

plaintiff filed another motion for injunctive relief claiming that prison officials at CSP-Sac were

retaliating against him in other ways for his legal activities. 

On April 10, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he

has been transferred to California State Prison-Lancaster. When an inmate seeks injunctive relief

concerning an institution at which he is no longer incarcerated, his claims for such relief become

moot. See Sample v. Borg, 870 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1989); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874,

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 54 Filed 05/16/07 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

2

876 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff

has demonstrated no reasonable possibility that he will be incarcerated at CSP-Sac at any

predictable time in the future. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions should be denied as moot.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief

filed September 21, 2006, and February 9, 2007, 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, 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 reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten 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: 5/16/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

will1238.inj

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 54 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 2