Cory Hoch v. John Sanzberro

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CORY HOCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN SANZBERRO,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15448
D.C. No.
1:10-cv-02258-AWI-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --