(PC) East v. Kabonic et al, No. 1:2010cv01053 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction be Denied as Moot signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 03/07/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 3/25/2011. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) East v. Kabonic et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EBONE LEROY EAST, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01053-AWI-DLB PC 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED AS MOOT 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 G. KABONIC, et al., (DOC. 8) 12 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Ebone LeRoy East (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court 18 is Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, filed August 25, 19 2010. The Court treats the motion as one for preliminary injunction. 20 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 21 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 22 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 23 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The 24 purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable 25 injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 26 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 27 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for actions taken by prison officials at California 28 Correctional Institution (“CCI”). However, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at CCI pursuant to 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 a notice of change of address filed on December 30, 2010. Doc. 9. When an inmate seeks 2 injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such 3 relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. See Weinstein v. 4 Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). 5 Plaintiff’s motion is thus moot. 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 7 injunctive relief, filed August 25, 2010, should be DENIED. 8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 10 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 11 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 12 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 13 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 14 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 3b142a March 7, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
