United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOHNSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Donald Biederman, a prisoner proceeding without counsel, has
filed the following motions: Motion for Injunctive Relief
(Doc. 36), Motion to Amend (Doc. 46), Motion to Order
Defendants to Produce the Same Discovery in Rule 26 (Doc.
50), Motion in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc.
51), Motion to Order Core Civic Policy Manual and
MDOC/CoreCivic Contract (Doc. 52), Motion for the Appointment
of Counsel (Doc. 58), Motion for Transport to Pretrial
Conference and Clothing (Doc. 59), Motion for Subpoenas (Doc.
60), and Motion to Amend Transport Order (Doc.
Motions for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 36, 51)
Biederman filed a notice of change of address on January 25,
2019 indicating that he has been moved from Crossroads
Correctional Center to Montana State Prison. (Doc. 72.) If an
inmate is seeking injunctive relief with respect to
conditions of confinement, the prisoner's transfer to
another prison renders the request for injunctive relief
moot, unless there is some evidence of an expectation of
being transferred back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395,
402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir.
1991) (per curiam). Here, Mr. Biederman is seeking injunctive
relief with regard to the medical care he was receiving at
Crossroads Correctional Center. He is now incarcerated at
Montana State Prison. Accordingly, the motions for injunctive
relief should be denied.
Motion to Amend (Doc. 46)
Motion to Amend, Mr. Biederman seeks to amend the names of
the Defendants to read Assistant Warden Deborah Powell, Kari
Alstad, Peter Molnar, and Amber Massey. (Doc. 46.) Defendants
did not respond to the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(d)(1)(B)(ii) a failure to file a response brief may be
deemed an admission that the motion is well-taken. The motion
will be granted and the Clerk of Court will be directed to
correct the names of Defendants in the Court's docket.
Motion to Produce Discovery (Doc. 50)
Biederman's has filed a motion titled “Motion to
Order Defendant's to Produce the Same Discovery in Rule
26.” (Doc. 50.) To the extent this filing could be
construed as a motion to compel, it will be denied. Mr.
Biederman does not indicate what discovery he seeks to compel
or that he conferred with Defendants regarding these issues
as required by Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or Local Rule 26.3 and as instructed in the
Court's Scheduling Order.
Motion to Order CoreCivic Policy Manual and MDOC/CoreCivic
Contract (Doc. 52)
unclear to the Court what Mr. Biederman seeks with his
“Motion to Order CoreCivic Policy Manual and
MDOC/CoreCivic Contract.” (Doc. 52.) Defendants
construe the filing as a motion to compel CoreCivic's
policy manual and the MDOC/CoreCivic contract. To the extent,
Mr. Biederman is seeking those documents, he again failed to
comply with Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rule 26.3.
Court, however, also reads the motion as a request for an
order requiring Crossroads to honor CoreCivic's policy
manual which indicates indigent inmates will be provided
postage for privileged mail and photocopies. To the extent
this motion seeks postage and photocopies, it is moot because
Mr. Biederman has been transferred from Crossroads.
motion will be denied.
Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 58)
Mr. Biederman's third motion for the appointment of
counsel. As set forth in the prior Orders denying Mr.
Biederman's first two motions for appointment of counsel
(Docs. 11, 31), a judge may only request counsel for an
indigent plaintiff under “exceptional