DeLoney v. Snyder et al

Filing 25

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB ECF No. 19 is accepted and adopted in full; the motion for preliminary injunction ECF No. 10 is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DONALD DELONEY,
Plaintiff,

10
11

Case No. 3:16-cv-00732-MMD-WGC

v.
RICHARD SNYDER, et al.,

12

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

16

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 19) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

17

injunction (ECF No. 10). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 20) and

18

Defendant’s response (ECF No. 23).

19

II.

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections

21

(“NDOC”) and is currently housed at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center. The

22

events giving rise to this action occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Warm

23

Springs Correctional Center (“WSCC”). In the motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff

24

alleges that, on May 2, 2017, Snyder suspended all Muslim services in the chapel until

25

he could find an outside volunteer to lead the Muslim services. (ECF No. 10 at 2, 9.)

26

According to Plaintiff, there has never been a need in the NDOC to have an outside

27

imam conduct Jumah services. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that the pagan inmates are not

28

required to have an outside sponsor come in to conduct their services. (Id. at 6.)

1

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion for preliminary injunction

2

(ECF No. 10) be denied as moot. (ECF No. 19 at 4). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge

3

found:
Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as moot. In his response to Plaintiff’s
motion, defendant Snyder states in his declaration that Plaintiff was
transferred to [NNCC] in July of 2017. (ECF No. 18-1 at 2 ¶ 4.) Claims for
injunctive relief related to a prison’s policies are moot where a prisoner has
been transferred to another facility and shows no reasonable expectation
of return. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 522 (9th Cir. 1991) (per
curiam). Plaintiff did not file a reply brief indicating there was any
reasonable expectation he would be sent back to WSCC and subject to the
alleged ban on Muslim services. See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482
(1982) (exception to mootness that case is capable of repetition yet
evading review limited to circumstances where there is a reasonable
expectation that the same complaining party would be subject to the same
action again).

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(Id.)

12

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

13

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

14

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

15

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

16

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

17

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of Plaintiff’s

18

objections, the Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt

19

Magistrate Judge Cobb’s recommendations.

20

IV.

DISCUSSION

21

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s

22

motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10) as moot. Plaintiff’s 22-page objection

23

focuses on the merits of his constitutional claims but does not address the mootness

24

issue related to his motion for preliminary injunction. (See generally ECF No. 20).

25

Plaintiff does not deny his prison transfer but argues that the transfer happened after the

26

harm occurred at WSCC. (Id. at 3).

27

The Court accepts and adopts the R&R in full. Plaintiff has not argued that he has

28

a reasonable expectation of returning to WSCC and will again be subjected to the
2

1

alleged ban on Muslim services. As such, the Court denies the motion for preliminary

2

injunction (ECF No. 10) as moot.

3

V.

4

CONCLUSION
It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

5

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 19) is accepted and

6

adopted in full.

7
8
9

It is further ordered that the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10) is
denied as moot.
DATED THIS 29th day of December 2017.

10
11
12

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3