-SMS (PC) Carter v. Dawson et al, No. 1:2007cv01325 - Document 97 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 86 and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief 67 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/19/11. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
-SMS (PC) Carter v. Dawson et al Doc. 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LON CARTER, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01325-OWW-SKO PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. NICK DAWSON, et al., (ECF Nos. 67, 86, 90) 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Lon Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant 16 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order giving him priority legal status for legal research 19 on August 9, 2010. (ECF No. 67.) On February 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 20 recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties 21 that any objections were to be filed within twenty one days. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff filed objections 22 to findings and recommendations on February 25, 2011. (ECF No. 90.) 23 In his objections Plaintiff states that he has been transferred from Avenal State Prison to the 24 California Rehabilitation Center. (Obj., p. 4, ECF No. 90.) When an inmate seeks injunctive or 25 declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become 26 moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th 27 Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 28 519 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly Plaintiff’s motion is denied as it is moot. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned finds the 3 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 7, 2011, is adopted in full; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed August 9, 2010, is DENIED 7 as moot. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.