Arocha v. Sauceda et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/23/12 ORDERING that plaintiffs motions for injunctive relief 2 , 22 are DENIED.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RUDY AROCHA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2: 11-cv-2959 KJN P

vs.
E. SAUCEDA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

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

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 18, 2011, plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of

18

the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 9.)

19

On November 7, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt.

20

No. 2) At that time, plaintiff was housed at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). On April 16,

21

2011, plaintiff filed another motion for injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 22.) This motion, signed by

22

plaintiff on October 27, 2011, was prepared by plaintiff while he was housed at HDSP. (Id. at

23

18.) In both motions, plaintiff requests injunctive relief regarding conditions at HDSP.

24

On April 16, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he

25

is now housed at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”).

26

////
1

1

When an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where

2

he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those

3

conditions. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365,

4

1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief are denied as moot

5

because plaintiff is no longer housed at HDSP.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive

7

relief (Dkt. Nos. 2, 22) are denied.

8

DATED: April 23, 2012

9
10

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12

ar2959.pi

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2