(PC) Duncan v. California Healthcare Receivership Corp.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01288-AWI-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE AS MOOT RECEIVERSHIP CORP., et al., 15 (Docs. 28, 30) Defendants.

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO).1 (Docs. 28, 30.) In both motions, Plaintiff states that prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) placed him administrative segregation, and he requests a court order directing the officials to return him to the general population and place him single-cell housing. (See id.) After filing his motions, Plaintiff filed a notice that he had been transferred to Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (CSATF). (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff’s motions are therefore moot.

A claim is moot if the applicable “issues are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). “[I]f 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, unless there is some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back.” Rodriguez v. Moore, No. 2:19-cv-00226-MCE-DMC, 2019 WL 2284892, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3714510 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (citations omitted); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007).

6 Plaintiff’s requests to be released from administrative segregation at Kern Valley State Prison were therefore mooted when he transferred to CSATF; there is no evidence that he will be transferred back to KVSP. See Quezada v. Nepomuceno, No. 1:20-cv-01351-NONE-GSA, 2021 9 WL 228872, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2021). Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining orders (Docs. 28, 30) be DENIED as moot.

11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: December 3, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE