ARMANDO MUNOZ V. JAMES TILTON, No. 13-16203 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 14 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO v. MUNOZ, No. 13-16203 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-03846-EJD V. MEMORANDUM* JAMES TILTON; JEANNE S. WOODFORD; SUZAN HUBBARD, Warden; N. GRANNIS; B. HEDRICK; W. J. HILL; BEN CURRY; ANTHONY P. KANE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 8, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: O SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Armando Munoz appeals the district court s dismissal of his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc to -cc5. We affirm the district court s dismissal. I The district court correctly determined that Munoz s lawsuit is now moot. In September 2009, Munoz was transferred away from the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California to another prison. Since transferring, he has received numerous religious CDs and admits that all of his religious needs are being met. The district court was correct in determining that his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1063 64 (9th Cir. 2012). II The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Munoz leave to amend his complaint. The court had already given Munoz one opportunity to amend his complaint with the assistance of counsel and further amendment would likely have been futile. See U.S. Mortg., Inc. v. Saxton, 494 F.3d 833, 843 n.11 (9th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.