Vasquez v. Yu
Filing
15
FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Motion For A Preliminary Injunction Be DENIED (ECF Nos. 11 , 12 ), Objections Due Within Twenty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/17/2011. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 7/11/2011. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
VINCENT VASQUEZ,
10
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02013-LJO-SMS PC
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE
DENIED
DR. J. YU, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 11, 12)
13
Defendants.
/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
14
15
Plaintiff Vincent Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
16
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on October
17
26, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) On January 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
18
requiring him to be transferred from Corcoran State Prison to a prison that could care for his medical
19
needs and that officials at Corcoran State Prison not be allowed to overrule the recommendation
20
made by his kidney specialist. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of
21
change of address and he is now housed at the California Institution for Men, Chino. (ECF No. 14.)
22
The Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations on injunctive relief.
Section
23
3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison
24
conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a
25
particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless
26
the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the
27
violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of
28
the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
1
1
Additionally, when an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison
2
where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to
3
those conditions. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365,
4
1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). Since Plaintiff is no
5
longer incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, the injunctive relief he is seeking is moot and his
6
request for injunctive relief should be denied.
7
8
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
request for preliminary injunction be DENIED.
9
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
10
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)
11
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
12
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
13
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
14
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
15
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated:
icido3
June 17, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?