The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CLIFFORD HILER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) NO. CIV-18-0773-HE
)
JASON BRYANT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Clifford Hiler, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this § 1983 action
alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
(C), the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for initial proceedings.
Judge Erwin has issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that
plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief be dismissed as moot, plaintiff’s
official capacity claims for monetary damages be dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment
immunity, and summary judgment be granted to defendants based on qualified immunity
as to plaintiff’s individual capacity claims seeking monetary relief. Plaintiff has filed an
objection to the Report which triggers de novo review.1
After this case was filed, plaintiff was transferred to a different facility. In the
Report, Judge Erwin concluded that plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief
are moot because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable expectation that
he will again be subject to the actions of these defendants, all of whom work at the facility
1 Plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of his official capacity claims for monetary damages.
where plaintiff was previously incarcerated. In his objection, plaintiff asserts there is a
good chance that he will be transferred back to his previous facility and there is a reasonable
expectation that wherever he may be shipped within the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections2, he will be subjected to the same treatment. “[T]he capable-of-repetition
doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named
plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged
illegality.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983). Plaintiff’s conclusory
assertion, without more, is not a reasonable showing.
Judge Erwin also properly concluded that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars
the monetary claims against defendants in their individual capacities. As he noted, the case
law cited by plaintiff does not serve to clearly establish the law in the particular
circumstances involved here.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #49] is ADOPTED.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment [Doc. #38] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are DISMISSED as moot; plaintiff’s
official capacity claims for monetary damages are DISMISSED on the grounds of
Eleventh Amendment immunity; and summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of
defendants on plaintiff’s individual capacity claims seeking monetary relief.
2 In his objection, plaintiff states that the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (“ODOC”) is
a defendant in this case. ODOC is not a defendant in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12" day of February, 2020.
lhl thy,
JO ATON
Y STATES DISTRICT JUDGE