Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02295/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02295-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY A. HAZLE, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:08-cv-02295-GEB-KJM

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

MITCH CROFOOT, individually and as ) JUDGMENT*

Parole Officer of the CDCR; BRENDA ) 

WILDING, individually and as Unit ) 

Supervisor of the CDCR; MATTHEW ) 

CATE, individually and as Secretary) 

of the CDCR; SCOTT KERNAN, )

individually and as Chief Deputy )

Secretary of Adult Operations of )

the CDCR; TIM HOFFMAN, individually)

and as Director of the Division of )

Adult Parole Operations in )

California; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER )

JALLINS, individually and as )

deputy commissioner; and WESTCARE, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants Matthew Cate, Mitch Crofoot, Richard Jallins,

Scott Kernan, and Brenda Wilding (“Defendants”) filed a motion for

partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief

under California Code of Civil Procedure section 526a. Defendants

argue, inter alia, California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Directive No. 08-06 renders this claim moot. 

Plaintiff responds indicating that the motion could be resolved based

on an evidentiary record developed in an earlier decided motion by

stating: “Plaintiff treats the issues in defendants’ motion as having

already been resolved” by the Court’s prior order granting Defendant

Case 2:08-cv-02295-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Westcare’s motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s section

526a claim, in which the Court held the claim was mooted by CDCR

Directive No. 08-06. (Opp’n 2:2-3.) Since Plaintiff does not oppose

Defendants’ arguments, including the argument that the claim is moot

and for the reasons stated in the Court’s April 7, 2010 order granting

partial summary judgment in favor of Westcare, Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment is granted.

Dated: August 10, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-02295-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2