(PC) Bland v. Clark ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, Case No. 1:20-cv-01624-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR LACK OF 13 v. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION 14 KEN CLARK, 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 16 17 Plaintiff’s complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915A. For 18 the reasons set forth below, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and 19 the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) bars his claim for emotional damages. The Court 20 therefore recommends that this action be dismissed. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 At the time he filed his complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at California State Prison, 23 Corcoran (“CSP-Cor”). (Doc. 1 at 1.) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at 24 CSP-Cor planned to transfer him to Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), where he would be 25 subject to “harassment, . . . batteries, abuses, and retaliation[ ]” by other inmates and correctional 26 officers. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff states that the anticipated transfer caused him “extreme emotional 27 distress and severe mental anguish,” and he seeks an injunction that he be transferred to Mule 28 Creek State Prison or to a protective housing unit. (Id. at 2-4.) 1 After filing his complaint, Plaintiff was transferred to the Substance Abuse Treatment 2 Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”), then to the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility 3 (“R.J. Donovan”). (Docs. 10-11.) He is now confined at High Desert State Prison. (Doc. 16.) 4 On September 2, 2021, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not 5 be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff filed a response on 6 October 15, 2021. (Doc. 15.) In his response, Plaintiff does not meaningfully call into question 7 the Court’s findings that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims in his complaint, or that his claim for 8 emotional damages is barred by the PLRA. Instead, Plaintiff raises new allegations concerning his 9 incarceration at SATF and subsequent transfers to R.J. Donovan and High Desert State Prison, 10 and he requests that he be transferred back to SATF. (Id. at 1-2.) These allegations and requested 11 relief are unrelated to that in his complaint. As described above, Plaintiff alleges in his complaint 12 that an anticipated transfer to KVSP caused him mental and emotional anguish and placed him in 13 danger of physical harm, and he requested that he be transferred to Mule Creek State Prison. 14 Those claims are now moot or barred by the PLRA, as described below. 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 A. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief against imminent harm is moot 17 A moot claim “is one where the issues are no longer live or the parties lack a legally 18 cognizable interest in the outcome.” Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1985) 19 (citation omitted). “Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot [claims] because their 20 constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or controversies.” Id. (citing Iron Arrow 21 Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983)). “[I]f an inmate is seeking injunctive relief with 22 respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request 23 for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an expectation of being transferred 24 back.” Rodriguez v. Moore, No. 2:19-cv-00226-MCE-DMC, 2019 WL 2284892, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 25 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3714510 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (citations 26 omitted); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 This lawsuit is based on Plaintiff’s allegation that officials at CSP-Cor plan to transfer him 28 to KVSP, which would place him in imminent danger of being attacked, harassed, and/or 1 retaliated against by other inmates and correctional officers. (See Doc. 1 at 3.) However, after 2 Plaintiff initiated this action, officials at CSP-Cor actually transferred him to SATF, and he is 3 now incarcerated High Desert State Prison. (Docs. 10, 16.) Thus, Plaintiff’s claim that CSP-Cor 4 officials were about to place him in imminent danger of physical and other harm by transferring 5 him to KVSP—and Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against such danger—is now moot. 6 The applicable “issues are, therefore, no longer live.” Sample, 771 F.2d at 1338. 7 B. Plaintiff fails to show that he suffered an injury in fact 8 To have standing, a plaintiff “must show that [he] has suffered an ‘injury in fact,’ that 9 [his] injury is ‘fairly traceable’ to the [defendant’s] actions, and that [his] injury will likely be 10 ‘redressed’ by this” action. Gospel Missions of Am. v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548, 554 (9th 11 Cir. 2003) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). Injury in fact—the 12 “[f]irst and foremost of standing’s three elements”—is a constitutional requirement. Spokeo, Inc. 13 v. Robins, 578 U.S. 856 (2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “To establish 14 injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected 15 interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or 16 hypothetical.’” Id. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). 17 Plaintiff fails to show that he has suffered an injury in fact. As explained above, Plaintiff 18 contends that officials at CSP-Cor were about to cause him injury by transferring him to KVSP. 19 (See Doc. 1 at 3.) This allegation fails to show that Plaintiff suffered actual, concrete harm. In 20 addition, as explained above, Plaintiff is now confined at High Desert State Prison. Thus, any 21 claim that harm was “imminent” is now moot. 22 C. Plaintiff’s claim for emotional harm is barred by the PLRA 23 Lastly, Plaintiff’s claim that he suffered mental or emotional harm is prohibited by the 24 Prison Litigation Reform Act. The statute provides that “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought 25 by a prisoner . . . for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing 26 of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Plaintiff does not 27 contend in his complaint that he suffered any physical injury, and he does not allege any sexual 28 act. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim for emotional or mental injury is barred by the PLRA. 1 III. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and his 3 claim for mental or emotional injuries is barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Court 4 therefore RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the 5 Court to assign a district judge to this action. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 8 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 9 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 10 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 11 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 12 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: October 18, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28