Sonny Mitchell v. K. Seibel et al

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed as moot by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 7/27/2017. (See order for details.) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Dismissal form, # 2 Civil Rights Complaint form) (jdo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:17-cv-00341-RGK-KES

Date: June 28, 2017

Title: SONNY MITCHELL v. K. SEIBEL, ET AL.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jazmin Dorado
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why
Plaintiff’s Complaint should not be
dismissed as moot

On January 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
in the Southern District of California. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a request to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. 2.) The Southern District transferred the case to this Court on February
21, 2017.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges he was transferred to Chuckawalla State Prison
(“Chuckawalla”) in October of 2016. (Dkt. 1 at 3.) Once he arrived he was deemed “high risk
medical” and a Chuckawalla doctor recommended Plaintiff’s transfer to Chino State Prison
(“Chino”). (Id.) However, due to alleged action or inaction by the Defendants, Plaintiff was not
transferred by January 2017, when he filed his Complaint. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’
failure to immediately transfer Plaintiff to Chino demonstrates that they were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs. (Id.)
In his request for relief, Plaintiff asks only for “emergency transfer to CIM-Chino as soon
as possible.” (Dkt. 1 at 8.) He specifically states he is not seeking further injunctive or monetary
relief. (Id.)
On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, indicating that he has been
transferred to CIM-Chino. (Dkt. 8.) The Court has confirmed his current prison location through
California’s online inmate locator. Therefore, his only demand has been satisfied, and the case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:17-cv-00341-RGK-KES

Date: June 28, 2017
Page 2

appears moot.
Generally, a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S.
277, 287 (2000). The basic question in determining mootness is whether there is a present
controversy as to which effective relief can be granted. Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman, 646
F.3d 1161, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Northwest Envm’t Def. Ctr. V. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241,
1244 (9th Cir. 1988). “A claim becomes moot when a plaintiff … receives complete relief on
that claim.” Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2016).
On or before July 27, 2017, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why his complaint should
not be dismissed as moot. If Plaintiff seeks no further relief, he may voluntarily dismiss this
action without prejudice by filling out and filing the attached notice of dismissal form.
If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this lawsuit, he should file a First Amended Complaint that
identifies what further relief he is seeking by July 27, 2017. If Plaintiff chooses to file a First
Amended Complaint, it should bear the docket number assigned to this case, be labeled “First
Amended Complaint,” and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original
Complaint or any other documents (except those that Plaintiff may choose to attach as exhibits).
The Clerk of Court shall please attach a blank notice of dismissal form and a blank civil
rights complaint form.

Initials of Deputy Clerk JD