(PC) Brown v. Chothia ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EUGENE C. BROWN, 1:19-cv-00352-DAD-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 11 v. M REO LT IEIO FN B F EO DR E T NE IEM DP O AR S A MR OY O I TN JUNCTIVE 12 C. CHOTHIA, et al., (ECF No. 25) 13 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 14 TWENTY-ONE DAYS 15 16 Plaintiff, Eugene C. Brown, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 18 motion for temporary injunctive relief. (ECF No. 25.) 19 At the time Plaintiff filed this action and his motion for temporary injunctive relief, 20 Plaintiff worked in a sewing factory at the Sierra Conservation Center. Plaintiff alleges that 21 Defendants have repeatedly changed the propane tank on a forklift located on the sewing factory 22 floor a short distance away from and in the presence of Plaintiff and have allowed propane to 23 escape from the propane tanks and lines, exposing Plaintiff and other inmates in the sewing 24 factory to a serious risk of harm. In his motion for temporary injunctive relief, Plaintiff seeks an 25 order prohibiting Defendants from exchanging the forklift propane tanks on the sewing factory 26 floor while Plaintiff and other inmates are present (ECF No. 25). 27 During the scheduling conference, held on January 22, 2020, Plaintiff admitted that he is 28 no longer employed at the sewing factory and thus is no longer present when propane tanks are 1 | exchanged on the forklift. Further, Defendants’ counsel represented that there was a change in 2 | procedure and that the exchange of propane tanks is now occurring in a different location. 3 | Plaintiff agreed that this change in procedure occurred but noted that because he is no longer in 4 | the sewing factory, he does not know whether this change in procedure is continuing. 5 By Plaintiff's own admission, he is no longer exposed to the risk of harm upon which his 6 | motion for temporary injunctive relief is based. This change in circumstances renders □□□□□□□□□□ 7 | motion for temporary injunctive relief moot. 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for temporary injunctive 9 | relief (ECF No. 25) be DENIED as moot. 10 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Court 11 | Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within twenty- 12 | one (21) days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party 13 || may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should 14 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 15 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 16 | on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 17 | F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _ January 28, 2020 [Je ey 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28