(PC) Howell v. Konrad ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, No. 2:20-CV-2389-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. KONRAD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 19, for injunctive relief. 19 If an inmate is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of confinement, 20 the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief moot where there 21 is no evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 22 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Such is the 23 case here. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent harassment and retaliation at California State 24 Prison – Sacramento. See ECF No. 19. Plaintiff’s motion is now moot because he has since been 25 transferred to a different prison and there is no evidence of an expectation that Plaintiff will be 26 transferred back. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for 2 | injunctive relief, ECF No. 19, be denied as moot. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 5 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 6 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 7 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 8 | Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 | Dated: March 31, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28