Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02626/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2626

___________

Richard Samuel, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Sarpy County Sheriff’s Office; Sarpy *

County Jail; Patrick Thomas, Sheriff; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Unknown Grabowski, Lt., Jail Admin; *

Un-named Others; Dval Enterprises; *

Unknown Juszyk, Sgt.; Kay Byerly; *

Unknown Kilgore, Cpl., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2006 

Filed: June 7, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nebraska state prisoner Richard Samuel appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his past

incarceration at the Sarpy County Jail.

Appellate Case: 05-2626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2006 Entry ID: 2053297
-2-

In his September 2004 amended complaint, Samuel alleged that conditions at

the Sarpy County Jail violated his constitutional rights, and he sought only injunctive

relief to correct those conditions. The record indicates that Samuel was transferred

from the Sarpy County Jail on August 20, 2004, and that he notified the district court

of this fact on November 24, 2004. 

The district court granted summary judgment for all the defendants on the

merits. However, we conclude that Samuel’s claims are moot because at the time he

filed the amended complaint seeking only injunctive relief, he was no longer

incarcerated at the Sarpy County Jail. See Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th

Cir. 1999) (inmate’s claim for injunctive relief to improve prison conditions was moot

when he was transferred to another facility and was no longer subject to those

conditions); see also In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation,

396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (well-established that amended complaint

supersedes original complaint and renders original complaint without legal effect),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 356 (2005).

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case

to the district court with directions to dismiss the case as moot. See Smith, 190 F.3d

at 856 (vacating and remanding with directions to dismiss case as moot). 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2626 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2006 Entry ID: 2053297