(PC) Gonzales v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GIOVANNI GONZALEZ, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1467 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CLOSE THE CASE CORRECTIONS AND ) 15 REHABILITATION, et al., ) (Docs. 42, 48) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 )

18 Giovanni Gonzalez seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights pursuant 19 to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, asserting the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 20 serious medical needs and discriminated against Plaintiff based upon his status as a transgender male. 21 (See generally Doc. 12.) Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules 22 of Civil Procedure, asserting that “Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief—the only 23 relief sought in this action—are moot.” (Doc. 42 at 1.) In addition, Defendants asserted the claim for 24 declaratory relief was “barred by the Plata v. Newsom class action.” (Id.) 25 The magistrate judge took judicial notice of Plaintiff’s medical records, which indicated the 26 CDCR approved Plaintiff’s request for gender affirming surgery and the surgery was completed on 27 September 2, 2022. (Doc. 48 at 6.) The magistrate judge observed that “Plaintiff does not dispute that 28 his request for injunctive relief as to providing him with [gender affirming surgery] is now moot.” (Id. 1 || at 8.) The magistrate judge found that because Plaintiff's received the requested procedure, “there is 2 || longer a ‘case or controversy’ before the Court.” (d., citing Societe de Conditionnement en Aluminit 3 || v. Hunter Eng’g Co., Inc., 655 F.2d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 1981).) The magistrate judge determined the 4 || Court no longer has jurisdiction over the claims raised. (/d. at 8-9.) In addition, the magistrate judge 5 || found that even if the Court retained jurisdiction, “Plaintiffs claim for declaratory relief regarding th 6 || GAS policy is barred by the Plata v. Newsom class action, because “the system relief he seeks would 7 ||... be duplicative of ... the relief sought in Plata.” (Id. at 9, citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 8 || 1138 (9th Cir. 2013).) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended Defendants’ motion to dismiss 9 || granted and the action be dismissed without prejudice. (/d. at 10.) 10 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that an 11 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 48 at 10.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to 12 || file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (d., citing 13 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 14 || time to do so has passed. 15 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 16 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 17 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated (Doc. 48) are ADOPTED in full. 19 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. 20 3. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 21 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to 22 close this case. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 |! Dated: _March 29, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 26 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28