Bradshaw v. Dahlstrom
| Decision Date | 02 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-00292-SLG-KFR |
| Parties | JOSHUA JAMES BRADSHAW, Plaintiff, v. NANCY DAHLSTROM, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Court recommends that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint seeking injunctive relief against restrictions on gatherings and visitation inside Alaska correctional facilities imposed in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic be dismissed as moot. In April 2021, during the pendency of this case, the Alaska Department of Corrections voluntarily withdrew the challenged regulations, thereby permitting gatherings and visitation within Plaintiff's correctional facility. Given that group gatherings and visitation have been restored, that the restoration of those activities was not a response to Plaintiff's complaint, and that the reimposition of similar restrictions is unlikely to recur there is no longer a live case or controversy for this Court to adjudicate. Accordingly, as it relates to Plaintiff's demands for injunctive relief, the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed as moot.
Plaintiff also seeks money damages from former DOC Commissioner Dahlstrom for her role in limiting religious gatherings within Plaintiff's place of confinement. However Plaintiff fails to state how Commissioner Dahlstrom personally participated in violating his rights. As a result the Court recommends granting in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for money damages against Commissioner Dahlstrom in her individual capacity, and giving Plaintiff leave to amend this claim.
On November 16, 2020, pro se Plaintiff, Joshua James Bradshaw, filed a complaint against the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), Nancy Dahlstrom; the Governor of Alaska, Michael Dunleavy; and DOC alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Alaska Constitution.[1] On February 22, 2021, the Court issued a screening order dismissing Mr. Bradshaw's complaint without prejudice, advising him of the elements he must plead if he chose to amend his complaint, and granting him time to do so.[2]
On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which the Court denied.[3] Plaintiff then filed his First Amended Complaint on March 22, 2021.[4] Plaintiff alleges in his First Amended Complaint that broad policies implemented by Defendants in response to the COVID-19 pandemic limiting group gatherings inside DOC facilities and restricting visitation violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, in addition to violating the Alaska Constitution and a previously-imposed Alaska state court order. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges in Claim One that Commissioner Dahlstrom's ban on religious gatherings within DOC facilities violated his right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. In Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges that mandates imposed by Governor Dunleavy limiting rehabilitation programming and visitation within DOC facilities violated his rights under the Alaska Constitution and the Cleary Settlement Agreement. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Governor Dunleavy violated his right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to his First Amendment free exercise claim.[5] Plaintiff requested a trial by jury and sought injunctive relief from all Defendants for each claim, as well as money damages from Commissioner Dahlstrom as it related to his allegations in Claim One.
On April 5, 2021, the Court issued an order provisionally appointing counsel and stayed the screening of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint to give counsel time to meet with his client, file a notice of appearance, and review and amend the complaint again if needed.[6] Counsel for Plaintiff filed a notice of appearance on April 12, 2021, followed by a status report advising the Court that Plaintiff wished to proceed on his First Amended Complaint as previously filed.[7]
On October 12, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.[8] After requesting additional time to respond, Plaintiff filed his response on December 6, 2021, and Defendants responded with a motion to strike that response.[9] Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motion to strike.[10] After counsel for Plaintiff filed a Rule 11 certification and a notice of withdrawal, the Court ordered counsel's withdrawal and denied Defendants' motion to strike.[11]
Defendants replied to Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, followed by a supplemental response by Plaintiff.[12] Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's supplemental response, and Plaintiff again opposed.[13]
On June 29, 2022, this Court sua sponte ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of mootness.[14] Specifically, the Court asked the parties to address whether DOC's revocation of the policies complained about by Plaintiff rendered his complaint moot.[15] Plaintiff timely filed his supplemental briefing on July 29, 2022.[16] After being granted an extension, Defendants filed their supplemental briefing on August 29, 2022.[17]
After referral from the District Court,[18] this Court now considers Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at Docket 24. For the reasons stated herein, this Court recommends dismissing as moot each of the claims raised in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint at Docket 10 where he seeks injunctive relief; specifically, his official capacity claim against Acting DOC Commissioner Winkelman in Claim One,[19]and Claims Two and Three against Governor Dunleavy. The Court also recommends granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as it relates to the individual capacity claim against Commissioner Dahlstrom, but granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint for this distinct claim only.
On March 11, 2020, Governor Dunleavy, pursuant to his authority under Alaska Statute 26.23.020(c), declared a “public health disaster emergency” (hereinafter “Disaster Declaration”).[21] On March 13, 2020, pursuant to his authority under the Disaster Declaration, Governor Dunleavy issued COVID-19 Health Mandate 1.1 suspending visitation at all DOC facilities effective March 14, 2020.[22] On that same day, DOC issued a press release stating that all visitation to DOC facilities was “temporarily suspended,” to include visitation by “outside volunteers and other tours and groups who routinely come into the institutions.”[23] On March 18, 2020, DOC suspended “non-essential contract services and all volunteers.”[24]
Plaintiff is an inmate at Lemon Creek Correctional Center (LCCC), a DOC facility located in Juneau, Alaska, and has been since at least April 15, 2020.[25] As a result of the suspension of visitation, Plaintiff lost access to group religious gatherings within LCCC, visitation by volunteer groups performing religious and rehabilitative services, and personal contact visits.[26]
On April 19, 2021, DOC reopened public visitation at LCCC and many other facilities for those inmates who had been fully vaccinated, and on April 28, 2021, DOC reopened visitation to all inmates regardless of vaccination status at all facilities other than the Anchorage Correctional Complex.[27] On April 30, 2021, Governor Dunleavy signed an executive proclamation ending the Disaster Declaration “effective immediately.”[28] III. Legal Standard and Analysis
[29]“Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot.”[30] A claim is moot “when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”[31]
A case may be mooted when one party stops performing or enforcing the challenged activity. However, “[t]he voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordinarily render a case moot because a dismissal for mootness would permit a resumption of the challenged conduct as soon as the case is dismissed.”[32] Voluntary cessation can yield mootness if a “stringent” standard is met: “A case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”[33]
In addition to the voluntary cessation doctrine, an exception to mootness exists when an issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”[34] “In order for [this] exception to apply, (1) the duration of the challenged action or injury must be too short to be fully litigated; and (2) there must be a reasonable likelihood that the same party will be subject to the action again.”[35] Like the voluntary cessation doctrine, the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine “traces to the principle that a party should not be able to evade judicial review, or to defeat a judgment, by temporarily altering questionable behavior.”[36]
Plaintiff admits that DOC has reinstated visitation and group religious services.[37] Nonetheless, Plaintiff seeks an “order [from the Court that Defendants] comply with the Cleary Final Settlement agreement,” and “an official judgment” from this Court that Defendants “pay attention and change their bad behavior and their policies.”[38] Plaintiff argues that such an order is necessary, in part, to prevent Defendants from “commit[ing] the same acts again,” thereby forcing Plaintiff “to go through the litigation process again.”
The Court finds that DOC's rescission of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial