Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01325-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LON CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICK DAWSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01325-OWW-SKO PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(ECF Nos. 67, 86, 90)

Plaintiff Lon Carter 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 302.

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order giving him prioritylegal status for legal research

on August 9, 2010. (ECF No. 67.) On February 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties

that any objections were to be filed within twenty one days. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff filed objections

to findings and recommendations on February 25, 2011. (ECF No. 90.) 

In his objections Plaintiff states that he has been transferred from Avenal State Prison to the

California Rehabilitation Center. (Obj., p. 4, ECF No. 90.) 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 (9th

Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517,

519 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly Plaintiff’s motion is denied as it is moot.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01325-AWI-BAM Document 97 Filed 03/21/11 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned finds the

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 7, 2011, is adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed August 9, 2010, is DENIED

as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01325-AWI-BAM Document 97 Filed 03/21/11 Page 2 of 2