Cory Hoch v. John Sanzberro ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 22 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CORY HOCH,                                      No.    16-15448
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
    1:10-cv-02258-AWI-DLB
    v.
    JOHN SANZBERRO,                                 MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted May 15, 2018
    Pasadena, California
    Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    In this action under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , Cory Hoch, a patient civilly detained
    in a California state hospital, appeals from the grant of summary judgment to John
    Sanzberro, a psychiatric technician and unit supervisor at the hospital. As the
    parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    1. Sanzberro is entitled to qualified immunity from Hoch’s claims for
    money damages. Assuming that Sanzberro’s conduct violated the Fourth
    Amendment, it was not clearly established in March 2008 that a state-hospital
    psychiatric technician in receipt of information that a detained patient-parolee had
    been found with plainly patient-restricted materials lacked sufficient cause to
    justify a search and seizure of that patient’s effects. Hoch offers no valid precedent
    that would have placed the supposed unlawfulness of Sanzberro’s conduct “beyond
    debate.” White v. Pauly, 
    137 S. Ct. 548
    , 551 (2017) (per curiam) (internal
    quotation mark omitted).
    2. Hoch lacks standing to seek a court order directing Sanzberro to return
    Hoch’s laptop. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Mattis, 
    868 F.3d 803
    , 815 (9th
    Cir. 2017); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 
    493 U.S. 215
    , 230-31 (1990).
    The evidence uniformly indicates that Sanzberro is incapable of returning the
    laptop: as Hoch conceded at deposition, the laptop is not in Sanzberro’s custody or
    control because, pursuant to a court order, it was placed in the custody of the Los
    Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, where it remains. It is therefore
    “merely speculative[] that [Hoch’s] injury will be redressed” by a court order
    directing Sanzberro to return it. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 
    504 U.S. 555
    , 561
    (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    3. Hoch’s claim for a declaratory judgment is moot. See Preiser v. Newkirk,
    2
    
    422 U.S. 395
    , 401 (1975); Skysign Int’l, Inc. v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 
    276 F.3d 1109
    , 1114 (9th Cir. 2002). Because a California regulation now bars civilly
    detained patients “from having personal access to, possession, or on-site storage”
    of internet-capable electronic devices, see 
    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 9, § 4350
     (2018),
    Hoch has no ongoing interest in a declaration of his privacy rights in such devices.
    Moreover, because this appeal arises from Hoch’s storage of patient-restricted
    materials on an electronic device, a declaration of the privacy rights of civilly
    detained patients in their rooms and non-electronic personal effects generally
    would be “an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of
    facts.” Preiser, 
    422 U.S. at 401
     (internal quotation marks omitted). We reject
    Hoch’s request, first asserted in his reply brief on appeal, that we invalidate
    California’s electronic-device ban as violating the First Amendment. See Smith v.
    Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
    4. Because Hoch has not explained what colorable causes of action he could
    or would attempt to plead against Coalinga State Hospital on remand, we decline
    his request for leave to add such claims. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 
    847 F.3d 646
    , 655-56 (9th Cir. 2017).
    AFFIRMED.
    3