Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hunt v. Kramer, 2:18-cv-3025 JAM KJN P. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20191120a66 Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for relief against defendants Kramer and Darley, based on improper strip searches performed on plaintiff at High Desert State Prison. On October 11, 2019, while housed at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, plaintiff filed a motion to compel the warden at High Desert State Pr
More

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for relief against defendants Kramer and Darley, based on improper strip searches performed on plaintiff at High Desert State Prison. On October 11, 2019, while housed at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, plaintiff filed a motion to compel the warden at High Desert State Prison to provide plaintiff with his personal property, including his legal materials. On October 31, 2019, defendants filed an opposition to the motion, noting plaintiff's recent transfers, and objecting that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the warden as he is not a party to this lawsuit. In addition, defendants argue that plaintiff's motion will soon become moot inasmuch as plaintiff was recently endorsed for transfer to the California Health Care Facility ("CHCF"), has now been transferred there, and therefore his property should be delivered to him shortly. (ECF No. 42 at 2.)

On October 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a change of address confirming his transfer to CHCF.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is fully briefed and submitted for decision, and no scheduling or discovery order has yet issued. Therefore, at present, plaintiff has no court deadlines pending in this case. In light of the status of this case, as well as plaintiff's recent endorsement to CHCF, plaintiff's motion is denied as premature, but without prejudice to its renewal.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 41) is denied without prejudice.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer