Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06258-9/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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING ACTION BE DISMISSED

AS MOOT

(Doc. 73)

I. Findings and Recommendations Recommending Dismissal of Action as Moot

A. Procedural History and Order to Show Cause

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 Edward S. Alameida, Jr. and Scott P. 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 regulation

by refusing to cut his hair, in accordance with his religious practices. (Doc. 17.) The grooming

standards regulation in question has been amended to permit 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 noncompliance with the grooming standards and a declaratory judgment. (Docs. 67, 72.) 

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 75 Filed 10/04/06 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

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

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. After reviewing defendants’ response, the Court issued an order to show cause

on July 26, 2006, in which it stated in relevant part:

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 declaratory judgment 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 Court will issue a

Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of the action, without

prejudice, as moot.

(Doc. 73.)

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 75 Filed 10/04/06 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

 Section 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to

1

prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular

plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such

relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the

least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 

3

B. Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause on August 23, 2006. (Doc. 74.)

Defendants did not file a reply.

In his response, plaintiff contends that this action is not moot because his claims for (1) a new

parole consideration hearing before the Board, (2) court filing fee and expenses, (3) compensation

for loss of wages, and (4) any other relief the court deems just and necessary are pending. In his

complaint, plaintiff prayed for (1) a declaration that his rights were violated, (2) a preliminary and

permanent injunction barring defendants from enforcing the inmate grooming standards through

punishments or threats, (3) an order mandating the expungement of all disciplinary reports relating

to the grooming standards issue in the complaint from his central file, and (4) nominal,

compensatory, and punitive damages. (Doc. 1, pg. 11.) From a review of the complaint, it appears

that plaintiff is attempting to expand his prayer for relief to avoid dismissal for mootness. 

Plaintiff did not seek a new parole hearing in his complaint. Further, the remaining claim

in this action isthat defendants violated RLUIPA by implementing and enforcing a grooming policy

which substantially burdened the exercise of plaintiff’s religious beliefs concerning his hair length.

Assuming merely for the sake of argument that defendants, who are a former CDCR Director and

a former Warden, have the power to require the Board of Prison Terms to hold a new hearing for

plaintiff, this form of relief would neither remedy the claim in this action, see Jones v. City of Los

Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (actual case or controversy required), nor meet the

requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). As such, the Court has no jurisdiction to issue such an 1

order, and plaintiff may not evade dismissal of this action for mootness by praying for this form of

relief. 

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 75 Filed 10/04/06 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

To the extent that plaintiff believes he is entitled to costs and fees, plaintiff’s remedy is to

file a bill of costs within ten days of entry of judgment, pursuant to Local Rule 54-292. The

entitlement, or belief of entitlement, to costs and fees does not allow plaintiff to avoid dismissal for

mootness. 

With respect to damages, plaintiff’s damages claims were dismissed on qualified immunity

grounds. (Docs. 38.) As a result, there are no longer any claims for monetary damages pending in

this action and plaintiff’s contention that his claim for lost wages is still pending is without merit.

Finally, plaintiff requests any other relief the Court deems just and necessary, a prayer not

set forth in the complaint. There are no claims for damages left in this action and plaintiff’s claims

for equitable relief have been rendered moot by the amendment to the grooming policy and the

expungement from plaintiff’s file of disciplinary reports for violations of the grooming policy.

Although the Court is mindful of the liberality of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), plaintiff’s

newly asserted catch-all prayer for relief is nothing more than a transparent effort to avoid dismissal

for mootness. 

In conclusion, the Court finds plaintiff has not shown cause why this action should not be

dismissed, and HEREBY RECOMMENDS this action be dismissed, without prejudice, as moot.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06258-LJO -SMS Document 75 Filed 10/04/06 Page 4 of 4