Anthony Davis Williams v. William P. Barr

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY DAVIS WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:20-cv-05005-JVS (MAA) 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 14 WILLIAM P. BARR et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff Anthony Davis Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding 19 pro se, filed a Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to Bivens v. 20 Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Complaint 21 alleges First Amendment retaliation and violations of the Eighth Amendment’s 22 prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments and deliberate indifference to 23 serious medical needs, all arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id., at 3–5.) 24 The Complaint seeks the following injunctive relief: (1) immediate full medical 25 treatment; (2) renewal of Plaintiff’s special diet; (3) cessation of discrimination 26 against Plaintiff for exercising his rights to petition the government; and 27 (4) immediate fourteen-day quarantine away from COVID-19-infected inmates and 28 release from the custody and care of Defendants to home confinement. (Id., at 6.) 1 On July 24, 2020, the Court received three filings from Plaintiff: (1) a 2 document entitled “Release to Home Confinement on 7-24-20,” stating that 3 Plaintiff was released from the custody of Warden Ponce to home confinement on 4 July 24, 2020 (ECF No. 11); (2) a document entitled “Change of Address,” 5 updating Plaintiff’s address to a non-prison location in Eastville, California (ECF 6 No. 9); and (3) a document entitled “Request to Either Stay All Proceedings for 7 (90) Days and/or Withdraw without Prejudice COVID-19 Release” (“Request”), 8 seeking either (i) a stay of the action for ninety days if the Court has ruled on 9 Plaintiff’s July 9, 2020 request for reconsideration for leave to proceed in forma 10 pauperis (“IFP Request”) (ECF No. 6) or (ii) if the Court has not ruled on the IFP 11 Request, a “withdrawal” of the action (Req., ECF No. 10). The Court previously 12 granted the IFP Request on July 14, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) 13 The Court confirmed that on July 9, 2020, the United States District Court 14 for the District of Arizona granted Plaintiff’s “Motion for Resentencing 3582: Due 15 to the Covid-19 Pandemic,” and ordered Plaintiff released from the custody of the 16 federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). USA v. Williams, No. 4:98-cr-1095-TUC-RCC, 17 slip op. at 1, 10 (D. Ariz. July 9, 2020). The BOP’s online inmate locator states 18 that Plaintiff was released from the BOP’s custody on July 24, 2020. Inmate 19 Locator, FED. BUREAU PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Sept. 20 15, 2020). 21 On July 29, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by August 28, 22 2020 why the lawsuit should not be dismissed as moot (“OSC”). (OSC, ECF No. 23 12.) On August 20, 2020, the OSC was returned to the Court as undeliverable by 24 the United States Postal Service. (ECF No. 13.) 25 Federal courts are barred from hearing matters in the absence of a live case or 26 controversy. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). 27 “To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be 28 threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be 1 redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 2 472, 477 (1990); accord Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128– 3 29 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). “If an event occurs that prevents the court from 4 granting effective relief, the claim is moot and must be dismissed.” Am. Rivers v. 5 Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997). Although there 6 is an exception to the mootness doctrine for claims that are “capable of repetition, 7 yet evade review,” that exception is limited to “extraordinary cases” where the 8 duration of the challenged action is too short to be fully litigated before it ceases, 9 and where there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiff will be subjected to the 10 same action again. Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2012). 11 This lawsuit has been mooted by Plaintiff’s release from prison. “Once an 12 inmate is removed from the environment in which he is subjected to the challenged 13 policy or practice, absent a claim for damages, he no longer has a legally 14 cognizable interest in a judicial decision on the merits of his claim.” Jones v. 15 Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Alvarez, 667 F.3d at 1064); 16 see also Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995) (“An inmate’s release 17 from prison while his claims are pending generally will moot any claims for 18 injunctive relief relating to the prison’s policies unless the suit has been certified as 19 a class action.”). “The reason is that the released inmate is no longer subject to the 20 prison conditions or policies he challenges.” Alvarez, 667 F.3d at 1064. Here, the 21 only remedies Plaintiff sought in this action are injunctive relief pertaining to 22 conditions of confinement, and Plaintiff no longer is subject to such conditions after 23 his release. This action therefore is moot. Plaintiff’s claims do not fall within the 24 mootness exception for claims that are capable of repetition, yet evade review 25 because there is no reasonable expectation Plaintiff will be subjected to the 26 challenged prison conditions again. The possibility that Plaintiff may be 27 reincarcerated is too speculative a basis on which to conclude that his claims are 28 capable of repetition. See Alvarez, 667 F.3d at 1064–65. l IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Request and this lawsuit are 2 || DISMISSED as moot without prejudice. No further filings shall be accepted under 3 || this case number. 4

6 || DATED: September 16, 2020 eee he of ~ 4 JAMES V. SELNA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 || Presented by: 10 | pe} 11 MARIA A. AUDERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28