Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00456-2/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

EASTERN DIVISION

_____________________________

TOMMY D. BURTON, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 3:09-CV-456-SRW

(WO)

JAY JONES, SHERIFF, et al., *

Defendants. *

_____________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Limestone Correctional Facility in Harvest,

Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on May 19, 2009. He complains that while he

was incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Center located in Opelika, Alabama, Officer

Deborah Teodoro endangered his life when she identified Plaintiff as a police officer in front

of other inmates on several occasions. In a supplement to his complaint Plaintiff alleged that

1

he feared for his life when Officer Teodoro distributed meal trays. Named as defendants are

Sheriff Jay Jones, Major Carry Torbert, Captain Cory Welch, Lieutenant Timothy Jones,

Sergeant Ronald Lyles, and Officer Deborah Teodoro. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief in

the form of an order which directs that the matters about which he complains cease and

directs Defendant Teodora to stay away from him. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 6.)

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Center when he filed this action. 1

Case 3:09-cv-00456-SRW Document 42 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 5
As noted, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Center. Since

filing this action he has been transferred to a state correctional facility within the Alabama

Department of Corrections. 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

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

2

Case 3:09-cv-00456-SRW Document 42 Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 5
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

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

3

Case 3:09-cv-00456-SRW Document 42 Filed 06/01/11 Page 3 of 5
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

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 in the Lee County Detention Center, having been

transferred to 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 Lee County Detention Center. “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

th

this case is any showing of a “continuing, 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

4

Case 3:09-cv-00456-SRW Document 42 Filed 06/01/11 Page 4 of 5
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).

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 shall

be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

2

II. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for

lack of jurisdiction.

A separate Order follows.

DONE, this 1 day of June, 2011.

st

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In the event Plaintiff is returned to the institution about which he complained, a dismissal 2

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

5

Case 3:09-cv-00456-SRW Document 42 Filed 06/01/11 Page 5 of 5