Manuel Panduro v. James Hill

I. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Request Prospective or Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff’s TAC, like the SAC and the FAC, seeks injunctive relief against the defendants. (Dkt. 25 at 17 “PRAYER FOR RELIEF: 1. For an order enjoining the named- Defendants from engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged in the Complaint.”) However, Plaintiff no longer resides at the California Institution for Men where the defendants work. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff resides at CDCR’s Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, CA. (Id.) As the Court explained in its previous dismissal orders, because Plaintiff is no longer housed at the California Institution for Men, he lacks standing to seek prospective or injunctive relief against the Defendants. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Because Plaintiff is no longer housed at the institution where many of the alleged violation occurred, he may not sue to enjoin those violations specific to [that institution] from recurring in the future.”); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007); Wiley v. Kern Cty. Sheriff, 2018 WL 1709980, *9 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2018) (a prisoner’s claim for injunctive…