(PC) Coleman v. California Department of Corrections ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAAHDI COLEMAN, No. 2:21-cv-00625-TLN-EFB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Saahdi Coleman (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 76.) On 23 September 20, 2024, Defendants N. Thompson, S. Manson, K. Morgan, G. Collinsworth, J. 24 Stewart, J. Kelley, G. Jones, D. Contreras, J. Lynch, B. Nguyen, J. Frederick, M. Burkhart, and J. 25 Macomber (collectively, “Defendants”) filed objections. (ECF No. 77.) 26 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 27 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 28 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). For the reasons 1 set forth below, the Court declines to adopt the recommendation to deny Defendants’ request to 2 dismiss the injunctive relief claims against Defendant California Department of Corrections and 3 Rehabilitation Secretary J. Macomber (successor to Defendant Allison) (“Defendant 4 Macomber”). 5 The relevant facts and legal standards as to Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims are set forth 6 in the findings and recommendations and need not be repeated here. The magistrate judge found 7 “Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief are not a separate cause of action,” but rather “injunctive 8 relief is a remedy that will turn upon whether [P]laintiff can actually prove the requisite elements 9 of his substantive claims.” (ECF No. 76 at 15.) Based on this, the magistrate judge found the 10 Court should deny Defendants’ request to dismiss the injunctive relief claims. 11 Defendants argue the magistrate judge erred in failing to dismiss Defendant Macomber 12 and the injunctive relief claims as moot. (ECF No. 77 at 7.) Defendants note Plaintiff’s 13 injunctive relief claims are premised on the alleged conditions he experienced during his stay in 14 the Short-Term Restricted Housing (“STRH”) unit at California State Prison – Sacramento 15 (“CSP-Sac”) in 2020, but Plaintiff was transferred out of CSP-Sac before this lawsuit was filed. 16 (Id.) Defendants therefore contend the injunctive relief claims are moot as Plaintiff is no longer 17 at CSP-Sac. (Id.) The Court agrees with Defendants. 18 “Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional 19 authority extends only to actual cases or controversies.” Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 20 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983). “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or 21 controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse 22 effects.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495–96 (1974). Indeed, a number of courts have 23 found that an inmate’s claims for injunctive relief are moot upon the inmate’s release from the 24 conditions or policies he challenges. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (“An inmate’s 25 release from prison while his claims are pending generally will moot any claims for injunctive 26 relief relating to the prison’s policies unless the suit has been certified as a class action . . . The 27 reason is that the released inmate is no longer subject to the prison conditions or policies he 28 challenges.”); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (finding state prisoner’s claim to enjoin 1 enforcement of a state penitentiary’s institutional order on the basis that it violated his 2 constitutional rights was moot because he was transferred from the state penitentiary to a 3 corrections center, and the district court found neither a “reasonable expectation” nor 4 “demonstrated probability” he would again return to the state penitentiary); Jones v. Burk, No. , 5 2009 WL 841032, at *6 (“When an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the 6 prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer 7 subjected to those conditions.” (citing Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975); Enrico’s, Inc. 8 v. Rice, 730 F.2d 1250, 1255 (9th Cir. 1984)). 9 Here, Plaintiff has not stated any claims against Defendant Macomber in his official 10 capacity because Plaintiff was transferred out of CSP-Sac and is therefore no longer subject to the 11 alleged conditions he claims he was subjected to in CSP-Sac in 2020. Any injunctive relief 12 claims related to Plaintiff’s stay in CSP-Sac are therefore moot. The magistrate judge was correct 13 that, to the extent Plaintiff seeks “system-wide” relief related to his stay in the STRH unit, those 14 claims must be dismissed and presented in the pending Coleman class action. (ECF No. 76 at 8– 15 10.) The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims against Defendant Macomber and 16 DISMISSES Defendant Macomber from this action. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 9, 2024 (ECF No. 76), are 19 ADOPTED IN PART; 20 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 53) is: 21 a. GRANTED IN PART without leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s claims for 22 injunctive relief against Defendant Macomber; 23 b. GRANTED IN PART without leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s Eighth 24 Amendment claims against all Defendants regarding his placement and length of stay in 25 the STRH Unit at CSP-Sac; 26 c. GRANTED IN PART with leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s Eighth 27 Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims; and 28 d. DENIED as to Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment claim against Defendant 1 | Thompson; 2 3. Defendant Kelley’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED with leave to 3 Amend; and 4 4. Should Plaintiff wish to cure the deficiencies identified in the Findings and 5 | Recommendations with respect to claims dismissed with leave to amend, Plaintiff may file an 6 || amended complaint not later than thirty (30) days after the electronic filing date of this Order. 7 | Defendants shall file any responsive pleading not later than twenty-one (21) days from the 8 | electronic filing date of Plaintiff's amended complaint. If Plaintiff opts not to file an amended 9 | complaint, the case will proceed against Defendants on the remaining claims, and Defendants 10 | shall file an answer not later than twenty-one (21) days from the deadline for filing an amended 11 | complaint. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | DATE: September 30, 2024 14 16 TROY L. NUNLEY 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28