(PC) Howell v. Konrad

Opinion

KAREEM J. HOWELL, No. 2:20-CV-2389-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. KONRAD, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 19, for injunctive relief. If an inmate is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot where there is no evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Such is the case here. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent harassment and retaliation at California State Prison – Sacramento. See ECF No. 19. Plaintiff’s motion is now moot because he has since been transferred to a different prison and there is no evidence of an expectation that Plaintiff will be transferred back. / / / / / / Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 19, be denied as moot. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: March 31, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE