Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00014/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00014-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID O. OLIVER, #285 230, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:13-CV-14-TMH

) [WO]

VICTOR NAPIER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Kilby Correctional Facility located in Mt.

Meigs, Alabama, when he filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, complains that privileges, or

immunities afforded him under the Constitution or laws of the United States were abridged

by the named Defendants. The named defendants are Warden Frank Albright and Officer

Victor Napier. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are injunctive in nature. Plaintiff is no longer

incarcerated at the Kilby Correctional Facility having been released from the custody of the

Alabama Department of Corrections during the pendency of this action. (See Doc. No. 31.)

Based on Plaintiff’s complaint and the specific relief sought, the undersigned concludes that

this action is due to be dismissed as moot.

I. DISCUSSION

Courts do not sit to render advisory opinions. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244,

246 (1971). An actual controversy must exist at all times when the case is pending. Steffel

Case 2:13-cv-00014-WKW-TFM Document 34 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 6
v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459 n.10 (1974). In a case such as this where the only relief

requested is injunctive in nature, it is possible for events subsequent to the filing of the

complaint to make the matter moot. National Black Police Assoc. v. District of Columbia,

108 F.3d 346, 350 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (change in statute); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820,

823 (4 Cir. 1991) (transfer of prisoner); Tawwab v. Metz 554 F.2d 22, 23 (2 Cir. 1977)

th nd

(change in policy).

A claim becomes moot when the controversy between the parties is no longer alive

because one party has no further concern in the outcome. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S.

147 (1975); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968) (“Where the question sought to be

adjudicated has been mooted by developments subsequent to filing of the complaint, no

justiciable controversy is presented.”). Article III of the United States Constitution confers

jurisdiction on the district courts to hear and determine “cases” or “controversies.” U.S.

Const. Art. III, 2. Federal courts are not permitted to rule upon questions which are

hypothetical in nature or which do not affect the rights of the parties in the case before the

court. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 US. 472, 477 (1990). “Article III requires that

a plaintiff's claim be live not just when he first brings suit, but throughout the litigation.”

Tucker v. Phyfer, 819 F.2d 1030, 1034 (11 Cir. 1987). Because mootness is jurisdictional,

th

dismissal is required when an action is moot, as a decision in a moot action would be an

impermissible advisory opinion. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11 Cir. 2001).

th

In Saladin v. Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 693 (11 Cir. 1987), the Eleventh Circuit

th

2

Case 2:13-cv-00014-WKW-TFM Document 34 Filed 06/19/13 Page 2 of 6
Court of Appeals determined:

A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation, such as

where there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will occur again or

where interim relief or events have eradicated the effects of the alleged

violation.

(citations omitted); see also Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876-77 (9 Cir. 1986)

th

(after an inmate is transferred, there is neither a “reasonable expectation” nor a

“demonstrated probability” that the inmate will return to the prison against which he sought

injunctive relief and therefore claim for injunctive relief is moot). “This case-or-controversy

requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate .

. . [I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when the suit was filed.” Id.

“Equitable relief is a prospective remedy, intended to prevent future injuries.” Adler

v. Duval County School Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11 Cir. 1997). For that reason, “[w]hen

th

the threat of future harm dissipates, the plaintiff's claims for equitable relief become moot

because the plaintiff no longer needs protection from future injury.” Id.; Church v. City of

Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11 Cir. 1994) (“Logically, ‘a prospective remedy will

th

provide no relief for an injury that is, and likely will remain, entirely in the past.’ “ (citation

omitted)). In the context of a § 1983 action filed by a prisoner, such as this, the law is settled

that a prayer for declaratory or injunctive relief becomes moot upon the transfer or release

of that prisoner from the facility where his cause of action arose. See, e.g., Spears v. Thigpen,

846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n inmate’s claim for injunctive and declaratory

3

Case 2:13-cv-00014-WKW-TFM Document 34 Filed 06/19/13 Page 3 of 6
relief in a § 1983 action fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate has been

transferred.”); Wahl v. McIver, 773 F .2d 1169, 1173 (11 Cir. 1985) (“[A] n inmate’s claim

th

for injunctive and declaratory relief in a section 1983 action fails to present a case or

controversy once the inmate has been transferred.”).

Plaintiff is no longer an inmate at the Kilby Correctional Facility, having been

released from state custody during the pendency of this action. He is, therefore, no longer

subject to the conditions about which he complains when he filed the instant matter. There

is no indication that Plaintiff will be returned to the Kilby Correctional Facility, much less

be returned in the immediate future. “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show

a pending case or controversy regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied by any

continuing, present injury or real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Cotterall v. Paul,

755 F.2d 777, 780 (11 Cir. 1985). Absent in this case is any showing of a “continuing,

th

present injury or real and immediate threat of repeated injury” to Plaintiff. See Id. (finding

that a transfer of the plaintiff back to the Coffee County Jail if he was again incarcerated at

a minimum security facility and charged with a disciplinary infraction was too speculative

to satisfy the required injury element).

In light of the foregoing, the court finds that Plaintiff's action is now moot. Because

there is no present case or controversy to support the court’s jurisdiction over this action,

Plaintiff’s complaint is due to be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

1

 In the event Plaintiff is returned to the institution about which he complained, a 1

dismissal without prejudice allows him to re-file his claims. See Wahl, 773 F.2d at 1174.

4

Case 2:13-cv-00014-WKW-TFM Document 34 Filed 06/19/13 Page 4 of 6
II. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that

Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 5, 2013 the parties may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein

th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

5

Case 2:13-cv-00014-WKW-TFM Document 34 Filed 06/19/13 Page 5 of 6
Done, this 19 day of June 2013.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:13-cv-00014-WKW-TFM Document 34 Filed 06/19/13 Page 6 of 6