Farr v. Paramo

Opinion

JAMES EMMETT FARR, Case No.: 16-CV-1279 JLS (MSB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT AND v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al., RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL Defendants. OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF No. 82)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff James Emmett Farr’s “request that this Court revisit Plaintiff[’]s previous motion[] . . . for TRO in which his original motion lists this exact situational possibility where Plaintiff is removed of his legal property, papers, books, and notes, based on a fabricated rules violation.” Mot. for Reconsideration (ECF No. 82) at 4–5. In his original motion, Plaintiff requested an Order restraining Defendants from, among other things, “placing Plaintiff in Administrative Segregation and subsequently depriving him of his legal papers and books” and “falsifying Rules Violation Reports against Plaintiff.” See ECF No. 2 at 1. Since Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration, however, he was transferred from Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), where the alleged violations were occurring, to the California State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California. See ECF No. 83. In the absence of any evidence demonstrating Plaintiff's reasonable expectation of returning to RJD, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 82) is DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See, e.g., Nunez v. Diaz, No. 119CVOO0686SABPC, 2019 WL 4127205, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019) (denying as moot motion for temporary restraining order where the plaintiff was transferred to another facility) (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493, F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007); Johnson Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)); Canada vy. Niebert, No. 117CVO00873BAMPC, 2017 WL 4123937, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2017) (same) (citing Johnson, 948 F.2d at 519). Dated: September 26, 2019 tt ja Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge