(PC) Wolinski v. Junious et al, No. 1:2010cv02139 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunctive Relief Be Denied 2 , 8 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/11/11. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections Due Within Eighteen Days. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
(PC) Wolinski v. Junious et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02139-AWI-DLB PC 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (DOCS. 2, 8) 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al., 12 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN EIGHTEEN DAYS Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Krzysztof Wolinski (“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 are: 1) Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, filed November 9, 2010, and 2) 19 Plaintiff’s motion for order directing prison officials to refrain from interfering with his 20 documents, filed November 24, 2010. Docs. 2, 8. The Court will treat both as a motion for 21 preliminary injunctive relief. 22 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 23 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 24 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 25 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The 26 purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable 27 injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 28 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for actions taken by prison officials at Kern Valley State 2 Prison (“KVSP”) and California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). However, Plaintiff is no 3 longer incarcerated at KVSP and CSP-Sac pursuant to a notice of change of address filed on 4 January 11, 2011. Doc.13. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. When 5 an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, 6 his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. See 7 Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th 8 Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s motions are thus moot. 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary 10 injunctive relief, filed November 9, 2010, and November 24, 2010, should be DENIED. 11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within eighteen 13 (18) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 14 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 16 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 17 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 11, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2