Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01848-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 10-cv-1848 MCE KJN P

vs.

WARDEN SALINAS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order filed November 16, 2010. In this motion, plaintiff complains of conditions at

the Deuel Vocational Institution (“DVI”). On November 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice of

change of address indicating that he has been transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”).

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, 876 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Reimers v.

Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order should be denied as moot.

////

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 30 Filed 12/03/10 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

retraining order (Dkt. No. 26) 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 twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 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: December 2, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

tur1848.tro(2)

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 30 Filed 12/03/10 Page 2 of 2