(PC) Davidson v. Sullivan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN P. DAVIDSON, 1:18-cv-00722-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DIMISS 14 T. CHAVEZ, et al., (Doc. 16) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Ryan P. Davidson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action. Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations pursuant to the Religious Land Use 20 and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First 21 Amendment. On August 21, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s RLUIPA 22 claims. (Doc. 16). Defendants motion should be GRANTED because Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims 23 for injunctive relief are moot, and his RLUIPA claims for monetary relief are barred. 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 On November 20, 2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 26 stated cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment, as well under the 27 RLUIPA, against Defendants Chavez, Cates, and Voong, but that Plaintiff had failed to state cognizable claims against any other defendants. (Doc. 9.) In his complaint, Plaintiff contends that 1 Defendants violated his religious rights by denying him a kosher diet while he was incarcerated at 2 the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California. (Doc. 1.) On May 21, 3 2019, the assigned District Judge issued an order allowing this action to proceed on Plaintiff’s 4 First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against the defendants named above, but dismissing all 5 other claims and defendants. (Doc. 12.) 6 On August 21, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 7 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 16). The defendants contend that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive 8 relief under the RLUIPA are moot because Plaintiff was transferred from CCI, where the alleged 9 violations took place, to another facility. (Doc. 16-1 at 3.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a 10 statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion within the 21 days allowed by Local Rules. 11 See Local Rule 230(l). The Court deems the motion submitted. 12 The Court finds that Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of mootness should 13 have been brought under Rule 12(b)(1), since it invokes the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction 14 and the limits of its jurisdiction under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. See Genesis Healthcare 15 Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 79, (2013); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). 16 The Court thus construes Defendants’ motion as brought under Rule 12(b)(1). 17 In his complaint, Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive 18 damages. (Doc. 1 at 13.) His sole request for injunctive relief is a demand that Defendants 19 provide him a kosher diet. (Id.). Since filing his complaint, Plaintiff has been transferred from 20 CCI, and he is currently housed at the California Institution for Men in Chino, California.1 21 Because Plaintiff is no longer housed at the facility at which Defendants allegedly denied him a 22 kosher diet, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot. See Shilling v. Crawford, 377 F. App'x 23 702, 704 (9th Cir. 2010); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, 24 Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief should be dismissed. 25 To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief are brought pursuant to the 26 RLUIPA, these claims should also be dismissed. Monetary damages are not available under the 27 1 RLUIPA against state officials either in their official capacities or in their individual capacities. 2 Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 288 (2011) (holding that RLUIPA does not abrogate state’s 3 sovereign immunity); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 904 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that RLUIPA 4 only allows suits against officials in their governmental or official capacities). Since Plaintiff’s 5 claims for injunctive relief are moot, and his RLUIPA claims for monetary relief are barred, all of 6 Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims should be dismissed. 7 The only claims remaining are Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief under Section 1983 8 and the First Amendment. The defendants do not raise these claims in their motion to dismiss, 9 and the Court need not address them here. 10 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims, (Doc. 16), be GRANTED; 13 and 14 2. Plaintiff’s claims under the RLUIPA against Defendants Chavez, Cates, and Voong be 15 DISMISSED. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of 18 the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 19 with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 20 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result 21 in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 22 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Sheila K. Oberto 25 Dated: October 22, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27