Lee Quillar v. Rick Hill ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           JUL 07 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    LEE V. QUILLAR,                                   No. 13-15001
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01203-KJM-
    CKD
    V.
    RICK HILL, Warden,                                MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 25, 2014**
    Before:        HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Lee V. Quillar appeals pro se from the district
    court’s summary judgment, on the basis of the mootness doctrine, in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
    Person’s Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    *
    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).
    review de novo, Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch., 
    228 F.3d 1092
    , 1097 (9th Cir.
    2000), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Quillar failed
    to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there remained any case or
    controversy warranting further relief after defendants expunged the disciplinary
    reports related to grooming violations that Quillar challenged under RLUIPA, and
    restored his classification status, loss of credits, and access to privileges as if the
    reports were never issued. See Alvarez v. Hill, 
    667 F.3d 1061
    , 1064 (9th Cir. 2012)
    (“A claim is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a
    legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted)); Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 
    160 F.3d 543
    , 549 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The
    basic question in determining mootness is whether there is a present controversy as
    to which effective relief can be granted.” (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted)).
    Quillar’s contentions that defendant erroneously failed to expunge a June 22,
    2005 disciplinary report or restore his classification status from “A2B” to “A1A;”
    that court-appointed pro bono counsel in his prior appeal and on remand prejudiced
    his ability to prosecute his claims; and that the district court prevented him from
    submitting relevant evidence on summary judgment, are unpersuasive.
    2                                     13-15001
    Defendant’s motion for judicial notice, filed on June 18, 2013, is granted.
    See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    13-15001
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-15001

Judges: Hawkins, Tallman, Nguyen

Filed Date: 7/7/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024