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

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1712 FCD DAD P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 27, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion requesting preliminary

injunctive relief against unspecified defendants. Among the relief plaintiff seeks is a transfer

back to California State Prison - Sacrament (CSP-Sacramento). On May 19, 2005, plaintiff filed

a notice of change of address indicating that plaintiff is now incarcerated at CSP-Sacramento. 

When an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief which is no longer applicable because of

his transfer to another prison facility, the injunctive request becomes moot. See Weinstein v.

Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff’s request for an order to obtain a transfer is moot. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s other requests for injunctive relief are overly broad and speculative. In

this regard, plaintiff requests that defendants be ordered to rescind “any policy or practice which

includes a violation of plaintiff Manago’s mental health rights ,” to cease “tampering with

plaintiff’s mental health records,” to cease “any form of harassment,” “to address the numerous

deprivation of plaintiff having been denied meaningful protection and adequate mental health

treatment,” and to “free” plaintiff rom the “threat of being placed in the ASU or SHU[.]” (Mot.

for Prelim. Injunc., at 23-24.) Because these requests for injunctive relief are vague and nonspecific as to a particular defendant, the court cannot determine if the injunctive relief requested

is within the scope of authority of any of the named defendants. In addition, to the extent the

requested injunctive relief is beyond the scope of the authority of the named defendants, this

court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before

it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Finally, any

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Here, plaintiff’s requests are directed to all

defendants and are not narrowly drawn. The motion for a preliminary injunction should therefore

be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s October 27, 2004

motion for preliminary injunction 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, 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 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 15, 2005.

DAD:4

mana1712.inj

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3