Herbert N. Sample, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated and Ronald G. Rivera v. Robert G. Borg and James Roland

870 F.2d 563, 1989 WL 30139
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 1989
Docket88-1564
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 870 F.2d 563 (Herbert N. Sample, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated and Ronald G. Rivera v. Robert G. Borg and James Roland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herbert N. Sample, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated and Ronald G. Rivera v. Robert G. Borg and James Roland, 870 F.2d 563, 1989 WL 30139 (9th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

ORDER

Appellee Ronald G. Rivera filed this action to challenge the constitutionality of certain regulations promulgated by the California State Prison at Sacramento (“Prison”). Rivera claimed that the regulations unreasonably interfered with inmates’ ability to practice their Native American religion while incarcerated in the Prison’s Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) and therefore violated the first amendment. After a five-day bench trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction requiring the Prison to change its policy. See Sample v. Borg, 675 F.Supp. 574 (E.D.Cal.1987). This appeal followed. However, before oral argument was heard in the case, the Prison deactivated its SHU facility and transferred all unit prisoners, including Rivera, to other SHUs within the California system. Thus, none of the relief sought by Rivera in his original complaint is now available, and as both parties concede, the case is therefore moot. See IBTCWHA, Local Union No. 2702 v. Western Air Lines, Inc., 854 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir.1988). We express no opinion regarding the viability of any further actions that may be brought by Rivera to contest his new conditions of confinement.

The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the matter as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

(PS) Leonard v. Bu
E.D. California, 2023
United States v. Sanchez-Garcia
104 F. App'x 670 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Lucero v. Hensley
920 F. Supp. 1067 (C.D. California, 1996)
Mann v. Reynolds
828 F. Supp. 894 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
870 F.2d 563, 1989 WL 30139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-n-sample-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-persons-similarly-ca9-1989.