Howard v. Wang, et al.

Filing 27

ORDER Adopting 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Injuctive Relief signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/29/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

11

CASE NO.

1:10-cv-01783-AWI-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

12

(ECF Numbers #13 & #20)

v.

13

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

J. WANG, et al.,

14

/

15
16

ORDER

17
18
19

Plaintiff Timothy Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed January 13,

21

2011. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has not yet been screened by

22

the Court.

23

On January 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order.

24
25
26

(ECF No. 13.) In that Motion, Plaintiff requested that Defendants be required to provide
adequate medical care. Plaintiff described incidents that occurred in 2006, 2009, and

27
1

1

2010. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that he was being denied adequate medical treatment

2

contrary to a neurologists recommendations.

3

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

4
5

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a

6

Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

7

Restraining Order be denied. (ECF No. 20.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff

8

failed to meet the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief and included persons not involved

9

in this action.1 In his Objection, Plaintiff repeats the arguments made in his Motion and

10

First Amended Complaint, contending that he is still not receiving adequate medical care.

11
12

These arguments remain unpersuasive.

13

Furthermore, the Court also notes that it appears that Plaintiff has been transferred

14

to a new facility as he filed a change of address with the Court. (ECF No. 21.) Generally,

15

when a prisoner complains of unconstitutional conditions of confinement and is transferred

16

to another facility, a claim for injunctive relief from those conditions becomes moot. See

17

Brady v. Smith, 656 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir. 1981); Darring v. Kinchoe, 783 F.2d 874, 876

18
(9th Cir. 1986); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1990).
19
20

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

21

conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

22

Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by

23

proper analysis.

24
25
26
27

1

“A plaintiff seeking a prelim inary injunction m ust establish that he is likely to succeed on the
m erits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of prelim inary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am . Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City
of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting W inter v. Natural Res. Defense Council,
129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)).

2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendation, filed July 14, 2011, is ADOPTED; and

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7

Dated:
0m8i78

September 29, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3