Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. Jesse Cabana, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 03-1971-PHX-JAT (ECV) ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LMH

This is a civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate. Defendants have moved for summary judgment (dkt. #18), and Plaintiff has not responded. The Court will grant the motion. 1. Procedural History The Court screened Plaintiff's original Complaint and required Defendants Arpaio, Williams, Haggard, Velasquez, Barcelo, Olsen, Conn, Tademy and Spencer to answer Count III, in which Plaintiff alleged that he was denied due process when he was placed on a nutraloaf diet as punishment. Counts I, II, IV and V were dismissed (dkt. #3). Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief regarding Count III had been mooted by his transfer to the state prison, where he is currently serving a life sentence and thus unlikely to return to the jail. On January 30, 2006, the Court issued the customary order (dkt. #19) regarding Plaintiff's rights and obligations to respond to Defendants' motion. That Order was sent to
Document 23 Filed 06/16/2006 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01971-JAT-ECV

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

the jail and returned as undeliverable (dkt. #20), and re-mailed by the Clerk of Court to the state prison on March 10, 2006. The Order was not returned in the mail, so Plaintiff presumably received it. In that Order, Plaintiff was warned what he must do to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Even so, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's motion. 2. Legal Standard A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "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); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). When considering a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the non-movant is "to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). These inferences are limited, however, "to those upon which a reasonable jury might return a verdict." Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 1995). Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who, after adequate time for discovery, fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue of material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of a nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Id. 3. Analysis Plaintiff alleges in Count III of his verified Complaint that placing him on a nutraloaf diet was punishment, and the sole type of relief he requests is injunctive. (Compl. at 7.) Specifically, he seeks an order to prevent Defendants from placing pretrial detainees on nutraloaf diet as a sanction without due process and to prevent Defendants from depriving him of his religious diet. Id. Defendants correctly contend that Plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief on behalf of other inmates. A plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot -2-

Case 2:03-cv-01971-JAT-ECV

Document 23

Filed 06/16/2006

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

assert the legal rights or interests of third parties. Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 609 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). Plaintiff therefore lacks standing to obtain relief on behalf of other inmates. Defendants also correctly contend that Plaintiff's request is moot because he has been transferred from the jail to the prison to serve a life sentence. (See Difrancesco Aff., ¶ 5, Ex. A; Sentence of Imprisonment at 2, Ex. B, dkt. #18.) The jurisdiction of federal courts depends on the existence of a "case or controversy" under Article III of the Constitution. Public Utilities Com'n of the State of Cal. v. F.E.R.C, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation and citation omitted). A case generally becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Id. (quotations and citations omitted). Transfer to another prison renders a request for injunctive relief moot absent some indication of an expectation of being transferred back. Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-403 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). On summary judgment, Plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable expectation that he will be transferred back to the jail. See Johnson, 948 F.3d at 519. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. Defendants have demonstrated that he has been sentenced to life and is incarcerated at the state prison, so there is no reasonable expectation that he will be returned to the jail. The Court will therefore grant Defendants' motion. IT IS ORDERED: ... ... ... ... ... ...

-3Case 2:03-cv-01971-JAT-ECV Document 23 Filed 06/16/2006 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

(1) The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to reflect Plaintiff's current address at the state prison and shall re-send the Order at dkt. #21, which was returned in the mail, to Plaintiff. (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. #18) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 15th day of June, 2006.

-4Case 2:03-cv-01971-JAT-ECV Document 23 Filed 06/16/2006 Page 4 of 4