Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00360/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00360-1/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

MIGUEL J. LANGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O D. GRISSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00360-AWI-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

BE DENIED AS MOOT

(Docs. 12 and 14) 

Plaintiff Miguel J. Lange (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 20, 2005,

plaintiff filed amotion seeking an order prohibiting Correctional Officers Hobbs, Brasswell, Trujillo,

and Rodriguez, and Correctional Sergeant Beer from hindering his prosecution of this action. On

December 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order mandating that prison officials

photocopy his documents so that he may prosecute this action. The court construes the motions to

be seeking preliminary injunctive relief, in accordance with the court’s standard practice.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1)

a combination of probable success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air

Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must

Case 1:05-cv-00360-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 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

demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. Also, an injunction should not issue if the

plaintiff “shows no chance of success on the merits.” Id. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must

demonstrate a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.”

Id.

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

519 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff was released from prison on or around December 25, 2005. (Doc. 13.)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive are now moot. 

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motions for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed December 20, 2005, and December 29, 2005, be denied as moot.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00360-AWI -SMS Document 15 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2