Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Biederman v. Powell

United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division

January 31, 2019

DONALD DEAN BIEDERMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ASSISTANT WARDEN DEBORAH POWELL, KARI ALSTAD, PETER MOLNAR, and AMBER MASSEY[1], Defendants.

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          John Johnston, United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff 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. 71).[2]

         I. Motions for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 36, 51)

         Mr. 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.

         II. Motion to Amend (Doc. 46)

         In his 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.

         III. Motion to Produce Discovery (Doc. 50)

         Mr. 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.

         IV. Motion to Order CoreCivic Policy Manual and MDOC/CoreCivic Contract (Doc. 52)

         It is 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.

         The 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.

         The motion will be denied.

         IV. Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 58)

         This is 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 circumstances.” ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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