(PC) Johnson v. Martel et al, No. 2:2009cv02103 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 04/08/10 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall assign a District Judge to this matter. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 01/28/10 motion be denied as moot. MOTION Injunction 18 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Johnson v. Martel et al Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JOSEPH JOHNSON, 7 Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-2103 JFM (PC) 8 vs. 9 M. MARTEL, et al., ORDER AND 10 Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 11 / 12 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil 13 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 28, 2010, plaintiff filed a document 14 entitled “Motion for Injunction,” which the undersigned construed as a request for a temporary 15 restraining order. On March 18, 2010, defendants, who have not yet appeared in this matter, 16 filed a response. 17 In his motion, plaintiff asserts that, in retaliation for filing this action, he was 18 transferred to High Desert State Prison where two of his prison enemies, John Lambert and 19 Melvin Dismute, were housed. Plaintiff claims he complained about the transfer and his safety 20 concerns, but his complaints were dismissed by Captain D. Davey and CCI Barker. Next, 21 plaintiff claims he was assaulted on September 10, 2009 by a prisoner who was told to attack 22 him by enemy John Lambert. Lastly, plaintiff claims correctional officers Calison and Smith 23 have placed hair and gravel in his food in retaliation for filing complaints about his safety 24 concerns. 25 Defendants assert that plaintiff’s safety concerns are unfounded. (Resp. at 5.) 26 Upon conducting a search of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Dockets.Justia.com 1 (“CDCR”), defendants found no evidence that an individual by the name of Melvin Dismute was 2 housed in any CDCR facility. (Id., Attach. 1 at 18.) In investigating plaintiff’s claims that he 3 and John Lambert had once engaged in mutual combat while housed in Calipatria State Prison 4 (“CAL”), allegedly the reason that he and plaintiff are enemies, defendants found that, of the two 5 John Lamberts who were housed in the same facility as plaintiff as of the time of the filing of his 6 motion, one was never housed at CAL and the other was housed there before plaintiff’s 7 incarceration began. (Id., Attach. 1 at 5.) Further, defendants claim that correctional officers 8 Calison and Smith, who are not named in this action, do not provide plaintiff with his meals and 9 thus could not have placed hair or gravel in plaintiff’s food. Finally, defendants assert plaintiff 10 was transferred to Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, CA on March 17, 11 2010, thus rendering plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief moot. (See Pl.’s Notice of Change of 12 Address.) 13 Upon review, the court finds that plaintiff’s transfer to the Richard J. Donovan 14 Correctional Facility renders his motion moot. See Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 15 2001). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district 16 17 judge to this matter; and 18 19 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s January 28, 2010 motion be denied as moot. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 21 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 22 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 23 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 24 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised 25 that 26 ///// ///// 1 ///// 2 3 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 4 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: April 8, 2010. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /014; john2103.tro(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.
