(PC) Duncan v. California Healthcare Receivership Corp. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 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 14 CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE AS MOOT RECEIVERSHIP CORP., et al., 15 (Docs. 28, 30) Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth motions for a temporary restraining order 18 (TRO).1 (Docs. 28, 30.) In both motions, Plaintiff states that prison officials at Kern Valley State 19 Prison (KVSP) placed him administrative segregation, and he requests a court order directing the 20 officials to return him to the general population and place him single-cell housing. (See id.) After 21 filing his motions, Plaintiff filed a notice that he had been transferred to Substance Abuse 22 Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (CSATF). (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff’s motions are 23 therefore moot. 24 A claim is moot if the applicable “issues are no longer live or the parties lack a legally 25 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1985) 26 (citation omitted). “[I]f an inmate is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of 27 1 1 confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief 2 moot, unless there is some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back.” Rodriguez v. 3 Moore, No. 2:19-cv-00226-MCE-DMC, 2019 WL 2284892, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2019), report and 4 recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3714510 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (citations omitted); see also 5 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 7 Prison were therefore mooted when he transferred to CSATF; there is no evidence that he will be 8 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 10 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 12 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days of the date of service of these 13 Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The 14 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 15 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 16 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 17 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: December 3, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27