Armando Munoz v. James Tilton , 585 F. App'x 424 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO v. MUNOZ, No. 13-16203
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-03846-EJD
V.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES TILTON; JEANNE S.
WOODFORD; SUZAN HUBBARD,
Warden; N. GRANNIS; B. HEDRICK; W.
J. HILL; BEN CURRY; ANTHONY P.
KANE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 8, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Armando Munoz appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc to -cc5. We affirm the district court’s
dismissal.
I
The district court correctly determined that Munoz’s lawsuit is now moot.
In September 2009, Munoz was transferred away from the Correctional Training
Facility in Soledad, California to another prison. Since transferring, he has
received numerous religious CDs and admits that all of his religious needs are
being met. The district court was correct in determining that his claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief are moot. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061,
1063–64 (9th Cir. 2012).
II
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Munoz leave to
amend his complaint. The court had already given Munoz one opportunity to
amend his complaint with the assistance of counsel and further amendment would
likely have been futile. See U.S. Mortg., Inc. v. Saxton, 494 F.3d 833, 843 n.11
(9th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology
Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.