Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01752/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01752-0/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

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default; Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Order; Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin752msjmisc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE S. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

E. RAMOS,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-1752 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR

DEFAULT; DENYING

MOTION TO COMPEL;

DENYING MOTION FOR

COURT ORDER; GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17, 25)

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 18, 2005, the Court ordered

service of one of the claims and dismissed one claim without leave to amend. Defendant

filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed an opposition and Defendant

filed a reply. Plaintiff has filed two motions for entry of default, a motion to compel, and

a motion for a court order concerning his legal property. Based upon the record and the

briefing, the Court concludes that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motions (docket nos. 9, 13, 15, 16, 25) will be DENIED. 

Case 5:04-cv-01752-JF Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default; Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Order; Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin752msjmisc 2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that an administrative appeal by which he sought permission to

correspond with his older brother, Hubert D. Martin, an inmate at the Correctional

Training Facility (“CTF”) in Soledad, California, was partially granted. He claims that

Defendant refused to verify his family information with the CTF and replied to Plaintiff

that “No one is going to make me do anything . . . I’ll make sure your correspondence is

denied.” See Complaint at 3. Plaintiff claims that Defendant retaliated against him

because Plaintiff previously complained and reported Defendant for an incident of

harrassment. Plaintiff contends that Defendant harassed him, threatened him, and abused

her power in refusing to allow Plaintiff to correspond with his brother. Plaintiff seeks

injunctive relief requesting an injunction or court order allowing him to correspond with

his brother. 

 DISCUSSION 

A. Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motions for Entry of Default

Plaintiff filed two motions for entry of default and a motion for order to show

cause as to whether the Defendant was served. On March 22, 2005, a summons issued to

Defendant and to the Attorney General’s Office. On May 19, 2005, Defendant, through

counsel, filed a motion for extension of time to file a dispositive motion. The Court

granted Defendant’s motion for extension of time on May 23, 2005. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion for order to show cause as to whether Defendant was served (docket

no. 9) is DENIED; the official docket reflects that Defendant returned the executed

summons on May 24, 2005. Plaintiff’s motions for entry of default (docket nos. 13, 15)

also are DENIED because Defendant responded within the sixty-day deadline as required

by the Court’s order of service.

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:04-cv-01752-JF Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default; Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Order; Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin752msjmisc 3

B. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, requesting that the Court order Defendant to

provide documents relating to: all disciplinary actions taken against Defendant, all

progress reports and any recommendations from the California Department of Corrections

(“CDC”), and all pending and out of court lawsuits filed against Defendant as a CDC

employee. Plaintiff also requested that the Court order Defendant to respond to

Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. The Court concludes that the requested information

and documents are not relevant to the issues set forth in the pending motion for summary

judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (docket no. 16) is DENIED. 

C. Motion For Summary Judgment

1. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits

demonstrate that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are

those which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient

evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying

those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence

of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 

Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must

affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the

moving party. But on an issue for which the opposing party will have the burden of proof

at trial, as is the case here, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence

of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go

beyond the pleadings and, by its’ own affidavits or discovery, “set forth specific facts

Case 5:04-cv-01752-JF Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default; Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Order; Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin752msjmisc 4

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The court is only

concerned with disputes over material facts and “factual disputes that are irrelevant or

unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). It is not the task of the court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of

triable fact. Keenan v. Allen, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party

has the burden of identifying, with reasonable particularity, the evidence that precludes

summary judgment. Id. If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at

323.

2. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him by refusing to verify his

family information in order for him to obtain permission to correspond with his brother,

who is incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility. Defendant allegedly told

Plaintiff that “No one is going to make me do anything . . . I’ll make sure your

correspondence is denied.” See Complaint at 3. Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s

conduct was motivated by Plaintiff’s prior written complaint against Defendant for

harassment. Plaintiff contends that Defendant abused her power in refusing to allow him

to correspond with his brother, and seeks relief through an injunction or court order

allowing him to correspond with his brother. 

In her motion for summary judgment, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff is

now permitted to correspond with his brother as of June 16, 2005. Defendant submitted a

copy of the request for inmate correspondence (CDC form 1074) which was approved by

both prison facilities as of June 16, 2005. See Decl. of Eloy Medina in Support of Def.’s

Motn., Ex. A. Defendant notes that the only relief Plaintiff seeks by his complaint is an

injunction or court order allowing him to correspond with his brother. Because this

request has already been granted, Defendant contends that there is no genuine issue of

material fact and that no case or controversy presently exists. See Def.’s Motn. at 4-5. 

Case 5:04-cv-01752-JF Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default; Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Order; Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin752msjmisc 5

In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not disputed his claim of 

retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant deliberately retaliated against Plaintiff for

“writing her up.” See Pl.’s Opp. at 1. Plaintiff claims that there is nothing to prevent

Defendant or other CDC staff from revoking their permission for him to correspond with

his brother, except for a court injunction. Plaintiff cites to a CDC policy prohibiting any

reprisal against an inmate for filing an appeal. See California Code of Regulations, Title

15, § 3084.1. Plaintiff also alleges that the two prisons conspired to conceal Defendant’s

actions by granting Plaintiff’s request for correspondence after he filed the instant

complaint. Plaintiff repeats that there is nothing to stop the prison administration from

cancelling his ability to correspond with his brother after the instant case is resolved. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an injunction to prohibit the prisons from cancelling

his right to correspond with his brother. Plaintiff claims there are material facts in dispute

and that he is entitled to relief, including compensation for his emotional distress, costs

and attorney pro-se fees. See Pl.’s Opp. at 2-3. 

The jurisdiction of federal courts depends on the existence of a “case or

controversy” under Article III of the Constitution. PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458

(9th Cir. 1996). A claim is considered moot if it has lost its character as a present, live

controversy, and if no effective relief can be granted: “Where the question sought to be

adjudicated has been mooted by developments subsequent to filing of the complaint, no

justiciable controversy is presented.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968); see, e.g., 

Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2003) (constitutional challenge

requesting declaratory relief to Oregon’s “Budget Reduction Plan” suspending certain

criminal proceedings and appointment of public defenders for indigent defendants in

those proceedings is moot where at time of appeal plan has expired and appellate court

unable to provide any relief to plaintiffs). A claim also may be considered moot if interim

relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged

violation. See Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 

Case 5:04-cv-01752-JF Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 5 of 8
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

In actions involving prison conditions, the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995

("PLRA") further restricts the power of the court to grant prospective relief. See 18 U.S.C. §

3626(a); Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998).

 

2

 Plaintiff is free to file a new complaint for any damages, if he can do so in good faith. The

Court notes that “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default; Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Order; Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin752msjmisc 6

(9th Cir. 1998) (claim for injunctive and declaratory relief for unconstitutional blood and

urine tests was not mooted by the cessation of the testing because there were lingering

effects of the violations that could be remedied, i.e., a defendant retained the test results

and could be ordered to expunge the unconstitutional test results from its records). Where

injunctive relief is involved, questions of mootness are determined in light of the present

circumstances. See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, the Court concludes that there is no controversy remaining, nor any

requested relief for the Court to provide. “The requirements for the issuance of a

permanent injunction are the likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury

and the inadequacy of remedies at law.” Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92

F.3d 1486, 1495 (9th Cir. 1996). Permanent injunctive relief may not be granted absent a

great and immediate threat that the plaintiff will suffer future irreparable injury for which

there is no adequate remedy at law. See Nava v. City of Dublin, 121 F.3d 453, 458 (9th

Cir. 1997). Past injury to plaintiff is insufficient to satisfy this requirement, as is a threat

of future injury to other citizens, rather than to plaintiff specifically. See id. at 459. 1

In the instant action, Plaintiff concedes that he is able to correspond with his

brother at the CTF prison facility. Plaintiff’s only request for relief is an injunction to

permit him to correspond with his brother. Plaintiff’s allegations concerning possible

future harm and retaliation is purely speculative. Plaintiff fails to show any irreparable,

immediate injury at the present time. Moreover, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law,

as he may file a new civil rights action based upon any alleged retaliation in the future. 

Because Plaintiff did not seek any damages in the instant complaint, he cannot now

request damages for emotional distress and fees.2 

Case 5:04-cv-01752-JF Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 6 of 8
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

or other correctional facility for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a

prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). A determination that a plaintiff’s claim

for injunctive relief is moot does not mean that the plaintiff’s claim for damages is moot as well. 

See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding plaintiff’s

claims for damages were not moot where claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were

mooted by his successful habeas petition and subsequent release); Bernhardt v. Jones, 279 F.3d

862, 872 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a plaintiff’s claim for damages was not moot although the

plaintiff’s claim for prospective relief was). 

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default; Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Order; Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin752msjmisc 7

CONCLUSION

The Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is now moot. Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment (docket no. 17) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motions (docket nos. 9, 13, 15, 16,

25) are DENIED. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-01752-JF Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 7 of 8
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

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Default; Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Order; Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Martin752msjmisc 8

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Ronnie S. Martin 

T-64750/ B3-210U

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Jay C. Russell

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Ave

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:04-cv-01752-JF Document 28 Filed 03/28/06 Page 8 of 8