Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01684/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01684-17/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN SESSING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND 

FOURTEEN DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s June 19, 2015 fourth amended 

complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Sherman, Stainer, and Braggs for violating the 

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 34.). The parties have 

declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff initiated this action on October 18, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On February 8, 

2016, after being served with Plaintiff’s FAC, Defendants answered. (ECF No. 50.) On 

February 9, 2016, a Discovery and Scheduling Order issued setting a discovery deadline 

of October 9, 2016 and a dispositive motion deadline of December 19, 2016. Because of 

the pendency of the instant motion and other matters, Defendants have moved to modify 

the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 108.) That motion is pending.

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 7
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

On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification of various 

procedural issues. (ECF No. 80.) On October 17, 2016, Defendants filed an opposition 

(“Def.’s Opp’n.”) (ECF No. 87.) Therein, they suggested that the Court no longer had 

subject matter jurisdiction over the case and moved to dismiss it under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). (Id.) On November 1, 2016, Court directed Plaintiff to file a 

response. (ECF No. 94.) On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (hereafter “Pl.’s Opp’n”). (ECF No. 101.) Defendants filed 

a reply. (ECF No. 104.) The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). 

II. Facts

A. Allegations in Complaint

At all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance 

Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California. (Compl. (ECF No. 34) ¶ 2.) 

Defendant Sherman was then (and remains) the Warden of CSATF, Defendant Braggs 

the CSATF Community Partnership Manager, and Defendant Stainer the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Division of Adult Institutions 

Director. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.) Plaintiff names all Defendants in their official capacities, and seeks 

only injunctive relief. (Id. ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff is a practitioner of Asatru/Odinism, an Earth-based polytheistic religion 

originating out of Northern Europe. (Id. ¶¶ 13-15.) According to Plaintiff, “[o]utdoor

worship utilizing a fire pit and specific facilities, [including an altar and a circle of stones] 

is a central part of Asatru, and the religion cannot be practiced without it.” (Id. ¶ 20.)

Pursuant to a 2010 memorandum signed by Defendant Sherman’s predecessor, 

Warden Diaz, CSATF had an outdoor worship area available for all “pagan” groups that 

sought to use it, including Odinists. (“Jan. 20, 2010 Mem.” (Compl. at 24)). This area was 

not permanently separated from the rest of the yard, but rather was sectioned off using 

cones during times of worship. (Id.) Plaintiff was dissatisfied with these common worship 

grounds because they lacked a fire pit, an altar, and a circle of stones. (“Inmate/Parolee 

Appeal” (Compl. at 12-13.))

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 12/20/16 Page 2 of 7
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

The Native Americans at CSATF had access to a separate ceremonial worship 

area that included a fire pit. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff objected to sharing the Native American 

worship grounds and claimed he was not welcome there. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) He sought to 

have new, separate worship grounds constructed for Odinists. (Id. ¶ 27.) However, a 

2012 memorandum signed by Defendant Stainer’s predecessor, Kathleen Dickinson,

prohibited the construction of any new worship grounds at CSATF. (“Oct. 19, 2012 

Mem.” (Compl. at 22.)) When Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining about the existing 

worship grounds and seeking the construction of a separate worship area with a fire pit,

Defendant Braggs’ predecessor, Cote, denied the request, citing the 2010 

Memorandum. (“First Level Response” (Compl. at 16-17.))

Plaintiff filed suit against all Defendants in their official capacities seeking only an 

injunction directing Defendants to construct an outdoor worship area for Odinists at 

CSATF.

B. Facts Arising After Complaint

On December 3, 2013, the 2012 policy prohibiting the construction of new outdoor 

worship grounds was changed -- the Department of Adult Institutions authorized the 

construction of new worship grounds at all institutions. (See “Dec. 3, 2013 Mem. (ECF 

No. 84 at 33-34.)) Pursuant to a January 20, 2015 memorandum, in 2015 permanent 

outdoor worship grounds were constructed at CSATF. (“Jan. 20, 2015 Mem.” (ECF No. 

101 at 10-11); Decl. Arthur B. Mark in Supp. of Def.’s Opp’n (“Mark Decl.”), Pl.’s Dep. 

(ECF No. 87-1, Ex. 1) at 56:9-20; 68:5-12.)

Moreover, on October 4, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred from CSATF to High 

Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) in Susanville, California. (Mark Decl. Ex. 2.)

III. Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A. Legal Standard

Rule 12(h)(3) requires the Court to dismiss an action if it determines at any time 

that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “It is a 

fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The limits upon 

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 7
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

federal jurisdiction, whether imposed by the Constitution or by Congress, must not be 

disregarded nor evaded.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 

(1978). Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to adjudicating actual, ongoing 

controversies between litigants. See Deakins v. Mohaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). 

“When the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable 

interest in the outcome” and there is no reasonable expectation that the challenged 

action will be repeated, the action is generally deemed moot. Lee v. Schmidt–Wenzel,

766 F.2d 1387, 1389-90 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, thus “federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case 

that is moot.” Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

A challenge to jurisdiction “can be either facial, confining the inquiry to allegations 

in the complaint, or factual, permitting the court to look beyond the complaint.” Savage v. 

Glendale Union High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cnty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n. 2 (9th 

Cir. 2003). Where an attack on jurisdiction is a “facial” attack on the allegations of the 

complaint, the factual allegations of the complaint are taken as true and the non-moving 

party is entitled to have those facts construed in the light most favorable to him. Fed'n of 

African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1996). If the 

jurisdictional attack is “factual,” a defendant may rely on affidavits or other evidence 

properly before the Court, and the non-moving party is not entitled to any presumptions 

of truthfulness with respect to the allegations in the complaint. Rather, he or she must 

come forward with evidence establishing jurisdiction. Thornhill Publ’n. Co., Inc. v. Gen. 

Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). Plaintiff bears the burden of 

proving that the Court has jurisdiction to decide his claim. Id.

Finally, courts “have an obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of pro 

se litigants, especially when they are civil rights claims by inmates.” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 

729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, in the event the Court finds it lacks 

jurisdiction over the action, dismissal without leave to amend is improper “unless it is 

clear . . . that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Steckman v. Hart 

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 12/20/16 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 

1293, 1296 (9th Cir.1996))

B. Parties’ Arguments

Here, Defendants’ jurisdictional challenge is factual. They argue that 

circumstances that arose after the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint have rendered Plaintiff’s 

claims moot. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s transfer to HDSP has nullified any interest 

he once had in the relief sought in this case, to wit, a change in policy permitting the 

construction of new worship grounds at CSATF. Moreover, even if Plaintiff were still 

housed at CSATF, the policy he complained of no longer exists.

Plaintiff does not dispute that he has been transferred. Nor does he dispute that 

the policy at issue has changed. He argues, however, that the policy regarding religious 

grounds applies to all CDCR institutions, not simply CSATF. Since the change in policy 

at CSATF applies to HDSP as well, and since Plaintiff contends the new policy still 

violates his Equal Protection rights, there remains a live controversy between the parties. 

According to Plaintiff, the new policy explicitly bans access to fire pits, yet Native 

American inmates are still permitted to use them. Plaintiff also argues that the worship 

areas constructed under the new policy, which are fenced in, are unacceptable to 

Plaintiff’s worship needs as they “confine[] energy that does not harmonize with Odinist 

rites.” Plaintiff also believes the new policy was enacted in retaliation for the instant 

lawsuit. 

C. Discussion

The Court finds Plaintiff’s suit to enjoin application of the 2012 policy at CSATF 

has been rendered moot by his subsequent transfer from CSATF and the replacement of 

the 2012 policy with a new and different one. Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 

514, 521 (9th Cir. 1999) (“If there is no longer a possibility that [Plaintiff] can obtain relief 

for his claim, that claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”); Lee, 766 

F.2d at 1389-90. Plaintiff claims in this action that the 2012 policy violated his equal 

protection rights, and he seeks construction of an outdoor worship area at CSATF. 

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 12/20/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

However, the policy is no longer in effect and the construction of an outdoor worship 

area at CSATF would be of no benefit to Plaintiff because he is no longer housed there.. 

The only issue remaining is whether amendment would cure this defect. The Court 

believes it would not.

If Plaintiff were allowed to amend to state the claims he sets forth in his 

opposition, he would be challenging: (1) a different policy (2) as applied in a different

institution (3) by different Defendants. This effectively creates an entirely new case, and 

the proper course would be for Plaintiff to file his claims in a new lawsuit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

20(a)(2) (a plaintiff may only sue multiple defendants in the same action if at least one 

claim against each defendant arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series 

of transactions or occurrences” and there is a “question of law or fact common to all 

defendants.”); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire 

Bank v. Ins. Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980).

Plaintiff attempted over a year ago to amend his complaint to reflect the changes 

in policy referenced here. (Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File Am. Compl. (ECF Nos. 38 & 42.))

The Court denied Plaintiff’s request, advising him that alleged new constitutional 

violations by new defendants under new policies belonged in a separate suit. (Order 

Den. Leave to Am. (ECF No. 43)) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)). At that time, Plaintiff 

provided no details about the policy changes or how they affected his rights. Now that he 

has, it is clear that Plaintiff’s newly asserted claims belong in a separate action. 

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; and

2. Leave to amend be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 12/20/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01684-LJO-MJS Document 110 Filed 12/20/16 Page 7 of 7