Filed: Nov. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding, without counsel, with this action rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.) Defendants have not been served. On May 31, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief alleging that officials at the Sacramento County Jail had denied his request for a religious diet. (ECF No. 3.) On October 21, 2016, pursuant to the All Writs Act, the undersigne
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding, without counsel, with this action rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.) Defendants have not been served. On May 31, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief alleging that officials at the Sacramento County Jail had denied his request for a religious diet. (ECF No. 3.) On October 21, 2016, pursuant to the All Writs Act, the undersigned..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding, without counsel, with this action rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.) Defendants have not been served.
On May 31, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief alleging that officials at the Sacramento County Jail had denied his request for a religious diet. (ECF No. 3.) On October 21, 2016, pursuant to the All Writs Act, the undersigned ordered the Sacramento County Sheriff to file a response to plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 11.) On November 10, 2016, the Sacramento County Sheriff filed a response. (ECF No. 12.) The Sacramento County Sheriff responds, in part, that plaintiff did not properly request a religious diet. (Id.)
On November 14, 2016, the October 21, 2016 order was returned unserved on plaintiff because he is no longer in custody at the Sacramento County Jail. When an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is denied as moot as he is no longer housed at the Sacramento County Jail.
It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show case within thirty days of the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to keep the court apprised of his current address.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 3) is denied;
2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to keep the court apprised of his current address; failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action.
