Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07092/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APPEALSr., I L L D 

I' Court of Apl)8&U: 

TOMMY CARL MOORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

J . W. TRAPP, Sheriff of Choctaw 

County at Hugo, Oklahoma, 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

United Sf~n Circuit 

DEC 2 3 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-7092 

(D.C. No. CIV 91-104-S ) 

(E. D. Oklahoma ) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9 . The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Tommy Carl Moore appeals the dismissal of his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and the denial of class certification 

and dismissal of the class action suit stated in his supplemental 

complaint. The original complaint against the sheriff of Choctaw 

County, Oklahoma, asserted he and other prisoners at the Choctaw 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7092 Document: 010110154892 Date Filed: 12/23/1992 Page: 1 
County Jail were denied due process and equal protection rights, 

were subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and denied ade -

quate court access. The complaint sought no compensatory damages, 

only injunctive relief and punitive damages. The supplemental 

complaint asserted, on behalf of all prisoners incarcerated now 

and in the future at the Choctaw County Jail, denial of due process and equal protection with respect to access to law books at 

the jail, thus restricting adequate court access. Plaintiff asked 

for injunctive relief a nd class certification pursuant to Fed . R. 

Civ. P. 23 (a ) . 

Plaintiff was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee in the 

Choctaw County Jail from December 20, 199 0 , until January 17, 

1991. He filed his original§ 1983 complaint on February 26, 

1991, while he was no longer in custody, but residing in Boswell, 

Oklahoma. He filed the supplemental complaint June 7, 1991, while 

incarcerated in neighboring Bryan County. 

The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's original 

complaint. That complaint s ought punitive damages as well as 

equitable relief. Because plaintiff did n ot include a prayer for 

compensatory damages, punitive damages were not available. And, 

since the original complaint was filed when plaintiff was no 

longer in defendant's custody, equitable relief was unavailable 

absent a showing of a real and immediate threat of injury. City 

of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983) ; Fed. R. Civ. P . 

65. Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief was moot at the time 

he filed suit. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7092 Document: 010110154892 Date Filed: 12/23/1992 Page: 2 
The district judge denied class certification and dismissed 

the supplemental complaint because the case was moot as to plaintiff. A claim is moot 11when the issues are no longer 'live' or 

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. 11 

Powell v . McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). 

Although plaintiff's claim is theoretically viable as to some 

members of the proposed class, we must also consider whether 

plaintiff continues to have a personal stake in the case. A class 

action is not necessarily moot when the named plaintiff's claim 

ceases to exist. When a plaintiff seeks to represent a class of 

which he is no longer a member, the question is whether the named 

representative can 11 fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the class . 11 United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty. 445 U.S. 

388, 403 (1980); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). If the claim is "capable 

of repetition yet evading review" and may arise again with respect 

to the named plaintiff, the named plaintiff's stake may be significant enough to assure vigorous advocacy on behalf of the class. 

In such instances, a plaintiff may litigate the class certification issue. Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 398. Here, plaintiff was not a 

member of the class at the time the supplemental complaint 

requesting class certification was filed, because he was no longer 

incarcerated in the Choctaw County Jail. Plaintiff may have b een 

in this jail before (he asserts certain actions against him were 

in retaliation for his filing a prior lawsuit) but the record contains no evidence that plaintiff is likely to be reincarcerated in 

that jail again. Thus we must agree with the district court that 

plaintiff's asserted stake in this litigation is insufficie nt for 

- 3-

Appellate Case: 92-7092 Document: 010110154892 Date Filed: 12/23/1992 Page: 3 
him to represent the class of individuals who currently are, or 

may in the future be , incarcerated in the Choctaw County Jail. 

The supplemental complaint sought only injunctive relief, an 

equitable remedy. A threshold requirement for obtaining injunctive relief is a showing of immediate and irreparable injury. 

Plaintiff was not a member of the class which he sought to represent, made no showing that he was otherwise the appropriate class 

representative, and, as to him personally, his request for 

injuctive relief was moot at the time his s upplemental complaint 

was filed. The district court was correct, therefore, in denying 

class certification and dismissing the supplemental complaint. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate s hall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered f or the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-7092 Document: 010110154892 Date Filed: 12/23/1992 Page: 4