Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00480/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00480-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GOMEZ, No. 2:13-CV-0480-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

SANDERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ request for screening, or alternatively,

motion to dismiss (Doc. 38). 

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The court

authorized service of the fist amended complaint, to which the defendants’ filed a motion to

dismiss. The undersigned issued findings and recommendations that the motion to dismiss be

granted, but that plaintiff be granted leave to file an amended complaint. Prior to the findings

and recommendations being adopted, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. In the order

adopting the findings and recommendations, defendants were directed to respond to the second

amended complaint, which they have done by way of the request for screening/motion to dismiss. 

1

Case 2:13-cv-00480-TLN-CMK Document 40 Filed 08/26/16 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

To the extent the court is required to screen plaintiff’s amended complaint 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not challenge the

cognizability of the claim. Rather, the motion to dismiss challenges the request for injunctive

relief, the claims against the defendants in their official capacity, and portions of the complaint

which are unrelated. Plaintiff’s opposition does not address the merits of the motion, but objects

to the procedures used.

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff states he is suing the defendants in

both their individual and official capacities, requests injunctive relief in the form of compelling

the defendants to do what is necessary to get plaintiff placed on the kidney transplant list, and

contains a declaration from another prisoner who appears to be helping plaintiff. Defendants

argue plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot as he is no longer under the defendants’

control, the claims against the defendants in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh

Amendment, and the declaration and other statements in the complaint are irrelevant and

prejudicial and should be stricken.

Where a prisoner is seeking injunctive relief with respect to conditions of

confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request for injunctive relief

moot, unless there is some evidence of an expectation of being transferred back. See Prieser v.

Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991)

(per curiam). The court is also unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to

a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112

(1969). Here, the injunctive relief plaintiff has requested, that defendants be required to assist

plaintiff in obtaining a place on the transplant list, is moot. Plaintiff is no longer at the prison

where the defendants are, and is therefore no longer under their care.1 The request for injunctive

1 The undersigned does not find the “capable of repetition, yet evading review”

doctrine applicable here as the allegations in the complaint only relate to the decision of these

2

Case 2:13-cv-00480-TLN-CMK Document 40 Filed 08/26/16 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

relief is moot, and should be dismissed.

As the request for injunctive relief is moot, it stands that this action should

proceed against the defendants in their individual capacity only. The Eleventh Amendment bars

actions seeking damages from state officials acting in their official capacities. See Eaglesmith v.

Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 859 (9th Cir. 1995); Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir. 1992) (per

curiam). The Eleventh Amendment does not, however, bar suits against state officials acting in

their personal capacities. See id. Under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908),

the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief

against state officials in their official capacities. See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1025

(9th Cir. 1997). As this action should proceed only on plaintiff’s damages claim, it similarly

should only proceed against the defendants in the individual capacity. 

Finally, defendants move to strike certain paragraphs in the complaint as well as

the declaration by a fellow prisoner which is attached to the complaint. Rule 12(f) provides that

“[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Defendants argue that plaintiff’s references to other medical

personnel withholding other treatment are irrelevant and should be stricken. Similarly, they

contend that inmate Brown’s declaration is irrelevant, especially as it relates to a period of time

not involved in this case, is speculative, and involves events at a different prison.

The undersigned agrees that the references and declaration are irrelevant and

immaterial. What happened at other prisons, at different times, to different inmates is irrelevant

to whether plaintiff was denied necessary medical treatment. Those references and declaration

should therefore be stricken. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike (Doc. 38) be granted;

two individual physicians at California Medical Facility. See Weinstein v. Bradford,423 U.S.

147, 149 (1975).

3

Case 2:13-cv-00480-TLN-CMK Document 40 Filed 08/26/16 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

2. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief be determined to be moot and

dismissed from this action;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants in their official capacity are barred by

the Eleventh Amendment and should be dismissed; 

4. The irrelevant statements in the second amended complaint (Doc. 35 at 4,

¶ 6; 6, ¶ 5) and the declaration of inmate Brown be stricken from the complaint; 

5. This action continue against the defendants in their individual capacities

on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim; and

6. Defendants be directed to file an answer to the complaint within 20 days.

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)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 26, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:13-cv-00480-TLN-CMK Document 40 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 4