Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01513-2/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

JASON LOKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER,

Defendant.

No. 1:23-cv-01513-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

CLARIFY RELIEF BEING SOUGHT

(Doc. No. 19)

AUGUST 28, 2024 DEADLINE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion titled, “Motion for Leave to Amend, or 

Dismiss as Moot,” filed July 26, 2024. (Doc. No. 19). The undersigned previously issued a 

Findings and Recommendations (F&R) to dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim, to 

which Plaintiff objected. (Doc. Nos. 17, 18). The F&R remains pending before the District 

Court. 

In his current Motion, Plaintiff acknowledges that he has recently transferred from Kern 

Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) to High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), and that his claims based 

on an allegedly unconstitutional personal food policy at KVSP may now be moot. (Id. at 1). 

Plaintiff continues, “[n]evertheless, conditions at KVSP and HDSP are substantially similar” and 

he seeks “leave to amend to reflect his current circumstances and to update the list of defendants 

to cure the mootness issue.” (Id. at 1-2). Alternatively, Plaintiff asks that the Court dismiss his 

case as moot, without prejudice. (Id. at 2). The Court will advise Plaintiff as to its tentative 

Case 1:23-cv-01513-KES-HBK Document 21 Filed 08/09/24 Page 1 of 4
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

analysis of his Motion to Amend but will defer ruling on it before affording Plaintiff an 

opportunity to clarify what relief he seeks.

Under Rule 15, a party “may amend its filing once as a matter of course . . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(1). For subsequent amendments, “a party may amend its pleading only with the 

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when 

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, leave to amend generally is inappropriate 

where the plaintiff has not indicated how it would make the complaint viable, either by 

submitting a proposed amendment or indicating somewhere in its court filings what an amended 

complaint would have contained. Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 394–95 (8th Cir. 1983). 

Here, Plaintiff implies that he should be able to simply change the institution and warden 

named in his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and otherwise proceed on a Third Amended 

Complaint without changing the substantive allegations in the SAC. (Doc. No. 19 at 1-2). 

Plaintiff alleges vaguely that “conditions at KVSP and HDSP are substantially similar” without 

specifically alleging that HDSP has the same personal food policy at issue in his original 

Complaint. (Id.). To the contrary, Plaintiff’s initial Complaint stated, “I’ve been housed at CTC 

in three other prisons—HDSP, SVSP, CHCF—none have this same restriction against personal 

food.” (Doc. No. 1 at 3). Thus, it is not clear there is any factual basis for Plaintiff to assert the 

same claim at HDSP that he alleged based on the policy at KVSP.

Further, given Plaintiff’s recent arrival at HDSP, it is unlikely he has had time to exhaust 

his administrative remedies as to any objectionable policy at HDXP. Although a prisoner litigant 

need not affirmatively plead compliance with the PLRA, if a prisoner litigant does so without 

having first exhausted his administrative remedies would almost inevitably result in dismissal and 

would waste limited court resources addressing his claims in the meantime. And, HDSP is 

located within the Sacramento Division of this Court, so venue for Plaintiff’s new claim would be 

in Sacramento Division, not in the Fresno Division. 

Additionally, Plaintiff has not addressed the underlying deficiency in his claim, which is 

that prison officials at KVSP provided a rational basis for the personal food policy, and thus the 

Court found that it was not unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Doc. No. 17 

Case 1:23-cv-01513-KES-HBK Document 21 Filed 08/09/24 Page 2 of 4
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

at 4-7). Plaintiff contends, without explanation, that reframing his claim as one brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 12132, a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act, would make his claim viable. 

(Doc. No. 19 at 2). But without more than this conclusory assertion, Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated to the Court that changing the legal basis for the claim would render his operative 

Complaint viable, given that the Court already found the policy passes rational basis scrutiny. 

For all these reasons, the Court would be inclined to recommend the Motion to Amend be 

denied.1

Plaintiff’s Motion in the alternative recognizes that his claim may be moot. Indeed, 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in his Second Amended Complaint in connection with the food 

policy at KVSP. Generally, a prisoner’s claims seeking injunctive relief against jail officials are 

moot once a prisoner has been transferred or released unless he can demonstrate a reasonable 

expectation of being transferred back to the same institution. See Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 

897 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting “when a prisoner is moved from a prison, his action will usually 

become moot as to the conditions at that particular facility”). As Plaintiff notes, because no 

defendant has been served and no answer nor motion for summary judgment has been filed, 

Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this action by operation of law for any reason, including that he 

believes it is moot, without further order from the Court consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). A voluntary dismissal of this action by Plaintiff prior 

to the district court ruling on the pending F&R finding that the complaint fails to state claim

would avoid Plaintiff from incurring a strike under the PLRA.2

Because Plaintiff seeks alternative forms of relief, the Court will afford Plaintiff the 

opportunity to clarify his intentions. If he wishes to voluntarily dismiss his SAC under Rule 

41(a)(1), he must submit a free-standing “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41.” If 

1 Plaintiff would of course be free to file a new complaint based on any allegedly unconstitutional policies 

at HDSP.

2 Under § 1915(g), “the three-strikes bar,” prisoners who have had on three or more prior occasions a case 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim may be barred from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in future civil actions and required to prepay the filing fee in full. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 

S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.2d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). Regardless 

of whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, a dismissal for failure to state a claim qualifies as 

a strike under § 1915(g). Lomax, 140 S. Ct. at 1727. 

Case 1:23-cv-01513-KES-HBK Document 21 Filed 08/09/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

he wishes to file a third amended complaint, he must submit a free-standing third amended 

complaint accompanied by a motion for leave to amend. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. No later than August 28, 2024, Plaintiff must submit to the Court either a freestanding “Motion to Amend” accompanied by a proposed “Third Amended 

Complaint” or a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41,” as 

appropriate.

2. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order, the Findings and Recommendations 

to dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim (Doc. No. 17) will be deemed 

ripe for consideration by the District Court.

Dated: August 9, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01513-KES-HBK Document 21 Filed 08/09/24 Page 4 of 4