FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND PADILLA, No. 09-15818
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00171-RAM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert A. McQuaid, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 16, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, GRABER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Raymond Padilla appeals the dismissal of his complaint.
Reviewing the dismissal de novo, Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.
2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101 (2012); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
(9th Cir. 2003), and the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, Ramirez,
334 F.3d at 854, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
1. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief from the conditions of his
confinement at Ely State Prison are moot now that he has been transferred to Warm
Springs Correctional Center. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368–69 (9th Cir.
1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); Darring
v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, they were properly
dismissed. But the case is not moot to the extent that Plaintiff seeks (a) injunctive
relief for any ongoing effects of his Security Threat Group classification (such as
inability in the new prison to earn money from a job) and (b) damages.
2. With regard to the non-moot claims for injunctive relief, the allegations
are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. We are unaware of any case that
requires a prisoner’s claim for injunctive relief to allege the personal participation
of the defendants or to "link" each specific defendant with an alleged constitutional
violation.
3. With regard to the claim for damages, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient
against those who, according to his allegations, were personally responsible for his
cell assignment: Greg Cox, E.K. McDaniel, Debra Brooks, Adam Endel, James
Baca, Bill Donate, Christina Tripp, Robert Chambliss, Kay Weiss, Ms. Walsh,
2
Mark Drain, Harry Peltzer, Claud Willis, and Lorena Irvine. We are unaware of
any case that requires a plaintiff to "link" each specific defendant to a particular
action when the allegations against a group of defendants are adequate. As to the
remaining Defendants, Plaintiff’s allegations are inadequate because he has not
plausibly alleged conduct for which supervisory officials may be held liable. See
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., No. 10-36152, 2013 WL 674059, at *23 (9th Cir. Feb.
26, 2013) (listing the circumstances in which supervisors may be held liable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983). Thus, they were properly dismissed. But the district court
abused its discretion in not permitting one more amendment to the complaint
because, after telling Plaintiff that he had failed to allege sufficient facts to state a
claim for supervisory liability, the court gave him only a single opportunity to
replead, and Plaintiff was pro se. See Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458,
460 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) ("[D]ismissal is proper only if it is absolutely
clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.").
With the help of counsel, Plaintiff may be able to plead a due process violation
adequately.
4. Because this case was dismissed on the pleadings, we must accept all
allegations as true. Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 854. We express no opinion on the
potential for success of any of the claims.
3
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. The
parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
4