Ernesto Lira v. Matthew Cate

MEMORANDUM

Defendant appeals the district court’s declaratory judgment entered after a bench trial. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court did not err in concluding that the action was not moot given the evidence of continuing harm to the plaintiff. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 , 118 S.Ct. 978 , 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (holding that the live controversy requirement is satisfied when the plaintiff suffered an actual injury traceable to the defendant throughout the litigation). The district court was persuaded by the evidence that declaratory and injunctive relief would have a significant mitigating impact on the continuing adverse impact to the plaintiff. This factual finding is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that plaintiffs injury should be “likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision” in order to avoid being deemed moot. Id. Given the extensive record, we see no clear error in these factual findings as to injury and redressability. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1053 (9th Cir.2010) (stating standard). The district court’s factual finding of a…