Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00813-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE-LAEL B. NORSWORTHY

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, JANEL 

ESPINOZA, MICHAEL PALLARES, 

IKWINDER SINGH, ROBERT 

MITCHELL, ROSELLE BRANCH

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00813-ADA-HBK (PC)

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. 

CIV. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii) AS TO DEFENDANT 

JEFF MACOMBER

ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED MOTION 

TO AMEND SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. No. 83)

 

Pending before the Court is the Parties’ joint stipulation for dismissal of request for 

injunctive relief and official capacity claim against Defendant Michael Pallares and stipulated 

dismissal of Defendant Jeff Macomber filed August 22, 2023. (Doc. No. 83).

On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) seeking, inter 

alia, a claim for injunctive relief “enjoining Defendants to provide Ms. Norsworthy with 

medically necessary surgery to try to restore her lost vaginal depth, adequate medical care, 

accommodations to dilate, accommodations to recover from surgery; and any other medical care, 

accommodations and/or medication which is, has been or will be prescribed by doctor or other 

healthcare professional.” (Doc. No. 75, ¶87). The SAC named various Defendants, including 

Defendant Jeffrey Macomber in his official capacity only as Secretary of the California 

Case 1:20-cv-00813-KES-HBK Document 86 Filed 09/01/23 Page 1 of 3
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

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Defendant Michael Pallares in his 

official capacity as Warden of California Central Women’s Facility, as well as in his individual 

capacity. (Doc. No. 75, ¶¶6, 8). Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, the Parties 

acknowledge that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are moot. (Doc. No. 83). Thus, the 

Parties jointly stipulate to a dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiff’s prayer for injunctive relief 

in her Second Amended Complaint, the dismissal with prejudice of Defendant Jeff Macomber

since he is named only in his official capacity, and the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s 

official capacity claim against Defendant Pallares. (Id.). 

The Court construes the Parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for 

injunctive relief and official capacity claims against Defendant Pallares as a motion to amend the 

SAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest 

Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 15(a) “is appropriate mechanism” when party is 

eliminating an issue or one or more claims but not completely dismissing a defendant). The 

Court agrees that Plaintiff’s release from prison moots her claims for injunctive relief. 

“Prisoners who have been released from prison or transferred to a different prison may not sue for 

injunctive relief because they no longer benefit from having the injunction issued.” Rupe v. Cate, 

688 F.Supp. 2d 1035, 1043 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2010) (citing Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 

(9th Cir. 1995)) (other citations omitted). A prisoner’s claim for injunctive relief is moot if there 

is no reasonable expectation the prisoner will be transferred back to the prison where the harm 

occurred. Dilley, 64 F.3d at 1369. It is not a reasonable expectation that a released prisoner will 

commit a criminal act and be re-incarcerated. Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 n. 4 (9th

Cir. 1988). 

Concerning the Parties stipulated notice that they are dismissing this action with prejudice

as to Defendant Jeffrey Macomber, (Doc. No. 83 at 2, ¶2), this action is terminated by operation 

of law as to Defendant Jeff Macomber without further order from the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s construed unopposed motion to amend the Second Amended Complaint

Case 1:20-cv-00813-KES-HBK Document 86 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

(Doc. No. 83) is GRANTED to the extent that:

a. Plaintiff’s prayer for injunctive relief in her Second 

Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 

No. 75, ¶87);

b. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Pallares in his 

official capacity are dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 

No. 75 at p. 5, ¶8:18-21.)1

2. The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect the voluntary dismissal of 

Defendant Jeffrey Macomber from this action. 

Dated: September 1, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The page numbers cited herein are to the page numbers as reflected on the pleading on CMECF.

Case 1:20-cv-00813-KES-HBK Document 86 Filed 09/01/23 Page 3 of 3