Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-00392-0/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 There is no prayer for monetary damages in this action. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARK ALLEN KIMBROUGH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-98-0392 MCE JFM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner on parole proceeding through counsel with a

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant officials with the

California Department of Corrections (CDC) violated his rights under the Religious Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) by enforcing against him grooming

regulations promulgated and implemented by the CDC in 1997. He seeks injunctive relief

prohibiting defendants from enforcing the regulations against him and requiring defendants to

restore thirty days of good time credits lost pursuant to a disciplinary conviction for violating the

grooming regulations. 

1

/////

Case 2:98-cv-00392-MCE-JFM Document 346 Filed 09/20/05 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

2

On February 27, 2004, this court conducted an evidentiary hearing. On June 10,

2004, plaintiff filed, in propria persona, a notice of change of address evidencing his release from

prison. On June 30, 2004, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing why this action should

not be dismissed as moot. On July 19, 2004, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. 

Plaintiff contends that his request for restoration of the thirty days of lost good time credits is not

mooted by his release from prison because restoration of the lost credits would shorten his parole

term. 

“Mootness can be characterized as the doctrine of standing set in a

time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the

commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue

throughout its existence (mootness).” Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v.

Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and “federal

courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot, that is,

where no actual or live controversy exists.” Id. “If there is no

longer a possibility that [a litigant] can obtain relief for his claim,

that claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

Ruvalcaba v. City of L.A., 167 F.3d 514, 521 (9th Cir.1999).

Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9 Cir. 2003). “A federal court has no jurisdiction to hear a th

case that cannot affect the litigants’ rights.” Native Village of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d

1505, 1509 (9 Cir. 1994) (citing Allard v. DeLorean, 884 F.2d 464, 466 (9th Cir.1989)). th

As noted above, plaintiff by this action sought an order prohibiting prison officials

from enforcing the grooming regulations against him and an order requiring prison officials to

restore thirty days of good time credits lost pursuant to a disciplinary conviction that he suffered

for failing to comply with the regulations. Plaintiff’s first request has been mooted by his release

from custody. He is no longer in prison and therefore no longer subject either to the grooming

regulations or to the control of prison officials. A fortiori, the court cannot enjoin prison officials

from enforcing those grooming regulations against plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s second request for relief is also moot. Under California law, good time

credits apply only to a term of imprisonment and not to any parole term. See Community

/////

Case 2:98-cv-00392-MCE-JFM Document 346 Filed 09/20/05 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

3

Release Bd. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.3d 814, 917 (Cal. App. 1979). Plaintiff’s term of

imprisonment has ended, and good time credits do not apply to his parole term. 

Plaintiff contends that his parole term would be shortened if the credits were

restored because if his credits had been properly restored he would have been released on parole

thirty days earlier. Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that restoration of the lost

credits at this time would effect a retroactive change in the onset of his parole term, and, as

discussed in the preceding paragraph, California law appears to be to the contrary. See

Community Release Bd., supra.; see also Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875 (9 Cir. 2002) th

(relief from a disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of 360 days of good time credits

could not have any effect on a parole term and habeas corpus challenge would therefore be

moot).

For the foregoing reasons, this court finds that this action is moot. It should,

therefore, be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Foster v. Carson, supra, citing Ruvucalba v.

City of L.A., supra.

In accordance with the above, Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 ten 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 document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:98-cv-00392-MCE-JFM Document 346 Filed 09/20/05 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

4

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). 

DATED: September 20, 2005.

12

kimb0392.dm

Case 2:98-cv-00392-MCE-JFM Document 346 Filed 09/20/05 Page 4 of 4