Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN B. COLLINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06258-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF WITH THE

OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

AS MOOT

(Doc. 71)

Plaintiff Steven B. Collins (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)). This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint

filed August 25, 2003, against defendants Alameida, Jr. and Rawers (“defendants”). Plaintiff’s

claims arise from his allegation that he was punished for failing to comply with the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s grooming standards when he refused to cut his hair,

in accordance with his religious practices. (Doc. 17.) An emergency modification to the grooming

regulation now permits inmates to wear their hair as long as they want to as long as the face is not

obscured, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3062(e) (2006), and plaintiff’s surviving claims for relief in this

action are plaintiff’s requests for an injunction mandating the expungement from plaintiff’s central

file of all the disciplinary reports relating to non-compliance with the grooming standards and a

declaratory judgment. (Docs. 67, 72.) 

On May 8, 2006, the Court ordered the parties to notify it whether or not a settlement

conference might be beneficial. (Doc. 68.) Plaintiff filed a response on May 15, 2006, and

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

defendants filed a response on June 7, 2006. (Docs. 69, 71.) In defendants’ response, they state that

they believe the action has been concluded because effective June 7, 2006, “all disciplinary reports

reflecting non-compliance with the grooming regulations have been expunged,” and request

clarification if the Court believes any issues remain. (Doc. 71, 2:20-21; Pitoniak Dec., ¶2.) Plaintiff

did not file a reply.

The expungement from plaintiff’s central and other files of all the disciplinary reports

relating to non-compliance with the grooming standards would appear to render plaintiff’s remaining

claim for injunctive relief moot. Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 489 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A case

becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable

interest in the outcome.’”) (quoting Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1011 (9th Cir. 2001)

(citations omitted)).

With respect to plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief, a declaratoryjudgment may only issue

if there exists “a case of actual controversy” before the court. 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); Societe de

Conditionnement en Aluminium v. Hunter Engineering Co., Inc., 655 F.2d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1981).

“A case or controversy exists justifying declaratory relief only when ‘the challenged government

activity is not contingent, has not evaporated or disappeared, and, by its continuing and brooding

presence, casts what may well be a substantial adverse effect on the interests of the petitioning

parties.’” Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, Medford Dist., 893 F.2d 1012, 1015

(9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 122 (1974)).

The grooming policy has been amended and defendants have set forth evidence that the

disciplinary reports have been expunged from plaintiff’s files. Accordingly, there apparently no

longer exists a case or controversy upon which to support a claim for declaratory relief. As such,

there are no claims left at issue in this action and it appears dismissal is appropriate. 

Because defendants did not set forth the information considered by the Court in this order

in a noticed motion, by this order plaintiff will be provided with notice and an opportunity to be

heard on this issue. Plaintiff may choose to show cause or may choose to agree to voluntary

dismissal of this action, without prejudice. In the alternative, plaintiff may opt to do neither, as he

is not required to file a response to this order. If plaintiff does not file a response to this order, the

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Court will issue a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of the action, without

prejudice, as moot.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may show

cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot; and

2. If plaintiff files a response to this order, defendants have fifteen (15) days within

which to file a reply, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 73 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 3