Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Schwarzenegger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 1, 2010

CHARLES E. JONES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se, who seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that while in prison, he was subjected to overcrowded conditions, causing him to contract a stomach virus and the flu. Plaintiff claims the overcrowding also resulted in him not receiving medical care for injuries he sustained as a result of being placed in "flexy cuffs" for four to five hours. Plaintiff only seeks injunctive relief to alleviate the overcrowded conditions at High Desert State Prison.

It appears that plaintiff was released from custody on or around July 26, 2010. See Dckt. No. 13; see also Dckt. No. 15 ¶ 3 (noting that plaintiff is on parole). Accordingly, on August 12, 2010, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot. Dckt. No. 14.

Despite an extension of time, plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause. See Dckt. Nos. 15, 16. The court finds that in light of plaintiff's release from custody, his claim for injunctive relief to alleviate the overcrowded conditions at High Desert State Prison, is now moot. See Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001) ("It is true that when a prisoner is moved from a prison, his action will usually become moot as to conditions at that particular facility.")

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 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)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20101101

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.