Sekona v. Custino, et al.

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/3/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 9 , 25 motions for injunctive relief. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ETUATE SEKONA,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:16-CV-0517-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

F. CUSTINO, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court

20

are plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 9 and 25).

21

In both motions, plaintiff complains of prison conditions at Mule Creek State

22

Prison as well as California State Prison – Sacramento. A review of the record, however, reflects

23

that plaintiff has been transferred to Kern Valley State Prison. Where a prisoner is seeking

24

injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another

25

prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an

26

expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975);
1

1
2

Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
Because plaintiff has not presented evidence of an expectation of being transferred

3

back to either Mule Creek State Prison or California State Prison – Sacramento, plaintiff’s

4

motions for injunctive relief with respect to conditions at those institutions are moot.

5
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive
relief (Docs. 9 and 25) are denied.

7
8
9
10

DATED: February 3, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2