Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00915/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00915-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Granting Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Hermosillo915_msj (moot).wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE H. HERMOSILLO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

P. CORSO,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-00915 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 14.)

Plaintiff, a former inmate in the Santa Clara County Jail, filed the instant civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court ordered service of the complaint upon

Defendant Sergeant P. Corso, and dismissed the remaining claims for failing to state a

cognizable basis for relief under § 1983. Defendant Corso has filed a motion for summary

judgment. (Docket No. 14.) Plaintiff has not filed opposition. For the reasons discussed

below, the Court concludes that Defendant Corso is entitled to summary judgment and will

GRANT Defendant’s motion. 

///

///

///

Case 5:08-cv-00915-JF Document 20 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Granting Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Hermosillo915_msj (moot).wpd 2

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show 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). A court will grant summary judgment

“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial . . . since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving

party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the lawsuit

under governing law, and a dispute about such a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

Generally, the moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of

the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex

Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. 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, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of evidence to

support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. If the evidence in opposition to the motion

is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. 

See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50. 

The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “go beyond the pleadings and by her

own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’

designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Celotex Corp., 477

U.S. at 324 (citations omitted). If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 323.

///

Case 5:08-cv-00915-JF Document 20 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Granting Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Hermosillo915_msj (moot).wpd 3

II. Legal Claims and Analysis

The Court found cognizable, when liberally construed, Plaintiff’s claim that

Defendant Corso placed him in “protective custody” in retaliation for Plaintiff exercising his

First Amendment right to complain about jail officials to Internal Affairs. (Compl. at 3-3A.)

Retaliation by a state actor for the exercise of a constitutional right is actionable under §

1983, even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would have been proper. See Mt.

Healthy City Bd. of Educ. V. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1977). Plaintiff seeks only

injunctive relief, i.e., to enjoin jail officials from the use of “harassment, threats and

intimidation” against inmates such as himself, and that the Court order the County to “take

the necessary steps ti bring [jail officials] into compliance with the lay by setting new policy

prohibiting such malicious practices.” (Compl. at 4.)

A. Mootness

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] dispute solely about the meaning of a law, abstracted from any concrete actual or

threatened harm, falls outside the scope of the constitutional words ‘Cases’ and

‘Controversies’.” Alvarez v. Smith, 130 S. Ct. 576, 580 (2009) (citations omitted). 

Whereas standing is evaluated by the facts that existed when the complaint was filed,

mootness inquiries require courts to look to changing circumstances that arise after the

complaint is filed. ACLU v. Heller, 471 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006). A claim is

considered moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy, and if no effective

relief can be granted due to subsequent developments. See 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

Case 5:08-cv-00915-JF Document 20 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Granting Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Hermosillo915_msj (moot).wpd 4

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

Defendant Corso moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff’s action

for injunctive relief is moot and unenforceable against him as the sole remaining defendant to

this action. (Mot. at 1.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not been in custody since July 2,

2009, (see Asban Decl. at 2) (Docket No. 15), and that Plaintiff’s release from jail renders his

case moot because no case or controversy presently exists before this Court. (Mot. at 3.) 

Plaintiff has not filed opposition to meet his burden to designate “specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

 The Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact with regards to

Defendant’s contention that no controversy remains or any requested relief for the Court to

provide. Because only injunctive relief is involved, the Court must consider the present

circumstances to resolve the question of mootness. See Mitchell, 75 F.3d at 528. It is clear

that Plaintiff’s non-custodial status means he is no longer subject to the alleged “malicious

conduct” of Santa Clara County Jail officials, and a court order enjoining them from such

conduct would have no effect on Plaintiff. Furthermore, when an inmate is released from

prison or transferred to another prison and there is no reasonable expectation nor

demonstrated probability that he will again be subjected to the prison conditions from which

he seeks injunctive relief, the claim for injunctive relief should be dismissed as moot. See

Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874,

876-77 (9th Cir. 1986); see also PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d at 1459 (federal court cannot issue

declaratory judgment if claim is moot); cf. Sadorski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir.

2006) (affirming dismissal of class claim for injunctive relief because inmate was no longer

Case 5:08-cv-00915-JF Document 20 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Granting Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.08\Hermosillo915_msj (moot).wpd 5

incarcerated pursuant to an unlawfully modified sentence and therefore had no personal stake

in the outcome of this litigation) (citing Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 101 (1968)). In sum,

Plaintiff’s release from custody has rendered his First Amendment claim against Defendant

Corso moot as it is no longer a present and live controversy, and the injunctive relief Plaintiff

seeks would no longer be effective. See Flast, 392 U.S. at 95. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant P. Corso’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED. (Docket No. 14.)

This order terminates Docket No. 14.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

7/15/10

Case 5:08-cv-00915-JF Document 20 Filed 07/26/10 Page 5 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE H. HERMOSILLO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

P. CORSO,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-00915 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jose Horace Hermosillo

1747 S. King Road

San Jose, CA 95122

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

7/26/10

7/26/10

Case 5:08-cv-00915-JF Document 20 Filed 07/26/10 Page 6 of 6