Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00816/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00816-1/pdf.json

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

---

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) 1

(establishing a cause of action for monetary damages and injunctive relief against federal officials

in their individual capacities for a violation of a federal constitutional right). Casanova initiated the

action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See Doc. No. 1.)

However, because of the nature of the relief sought by Casanova, the court determined that this case

should be treated as a Bivens action. (See Doc. No. 3.)

The orthopedic specialist is not an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PEDRO CASANOVA, #09102-052, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v ) Case No. 2:05cv816-WHA 

) (WO)

SCOTT A. MIDDLEBROOKS, )

WARDEN, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this Bivens action, federal inmate Pedro Casanova (“Casanova”) challenges the 1

constitutionality of the medical treatment provided to him at the Federal Prison Camp on

Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama (“FPC Montgomery”). In his complaint,

filed August 24, 2005, Casanova asserts that, while at FPC Montgomery, he was denied

knee-replacement surgery that was allegedly recommended by an orthopedic specialist, in 2

violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Casanova contends that instead of receiving the surgery he needed, he was given pain

Case 2:05-cv-00816-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 6
Casanova’s original complaint requested monetary damages as well. However, he 3

subsequently withdrew that request. (See Doc. No. 5.)

The BOP’s website, http://www.bop.gov/, reflects that Casanova is currently incarcerated

4

at CCM Phoenix, a community corrections facility located in Phoenix Arizona, and that his

projected release date from his sentence is August 25, 2007. Casanova did not provide this court

with notice of his change of address. His last filing with this court was on February 7, 2006.

2

medication and anti-inflammatory drugs, which caused serious adverse side effects. In

addition, Casanova asserts that his pain was exacerbated by his placement on work

assignments requiring mobility. Although Casanova complains about conduct by FPC

Montgomery Warden Scott A. Middlebrooks, the prison’s clinical director, Dr. Orencio

Garcia-Brenes, and a mid-level medical practitioner at the prison, Oscar Rodriguez, he names

only Middlebrooks as a defendant, and he did not serve Dr. Garcia-Brenes of Rodriguez with

his complaint. Casanova seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including a court order that

he immediately be provided with his requested knee surgery.3

Casanova is no longer incarcerated at FPC Montgomery. Since filing this action, he

has been transferred to another correctional facility within the Federal Bureau of Prisons

(“BOP”). Accordingly, and based on Casanova’s complaint and the specific relief sought, 4

the court concludes that this action is due to be dismissed as moot. 

II. DISCUSSION

In a case such as this, where the only relief requested is declaratory or injunctive in

nature, it is possible for events subsequent to the filing of the complaint to make matters

moot. See, e.g., National Black Police Assoc. v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 346, 350

(D.C. Cir. 1997); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4 Cir. 1991); Tawwab v. Metz 554 th

Case 2:05-cv-00816-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 6
3

F.2d 22, 23 (2 Cir. 1977). Article III of the United States Constitution confers jurisdiction nd

on the district courts to hear and determine “cases” or “controversies.” 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); see North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 246 (1971) (courts do not sit to

render advisory opinions). Thus, an actual controversy must exist at all times when the case

is pending. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459 n.10 (1974). “Where the question

sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by developments subsequent to filing of the

complaint, no justiciable controversy is presented.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968).

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

of Appeals stated:

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.

812 F.2d at 693 (citations omitted).

 A case is deemed moot where the problem sought to be remedied has ceased, or

where there “is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” Prins v.

Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504, 506 (2 Cir. 1996). Under this reasoning, a transfer from a prison nd

facility moots an action for injunctive and declaratory relief against the transferring facility

because the inmate is no longer located there. See id. (where inmate was transferred from

Green Haven to Clinton facilities to a facility in Florida, his request for injunctive relief

Case 2:05-cv-00816-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 6
As indicated above, Casanova names only Warden Middlebrooks as a defendant in his 5

complaint. It is well-established law that a medical-treatment claim cannot be brought against the

managing officer of a prison absent allegations that he was personally connected with the denial of

treatment. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926 (4 Cir. 1977). Casanova’s complaint against th

Warden Middlebrooks is not for his failure to provide medical treatment, but premised essentially

on the principle of respondeat superior in line with his official capacity. However, a plaintiff cannot

predicate liability for an alleged constitutional violation on a theory of respondeat superior. See

Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95, (1978); Oklahoma City v.

Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 820 (1985); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, supra. This court finds nothing in the record

suggesting that Warden Middlebrooks either exhibited “deliberate indifference” to Casnanova’s

medical needs by means of interference with the prison health-care personnel’s performance or in

any other manner which would satisfy the Supreme Court standard established in Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 96 (1976). See also Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848 (4 Cir. 1990). Furthermore, as a th

supervisory official, Warden Middlebrooks was entitled to rely on the medical judgments made by

prison medical personnel as to Casanova’s health care needs. Id. at 854-55. There is nothing

indicating that Warden Middlebrooks was involved in Casanova’s medical treatment or lack thereof.

Thus, Casanova fails to suggest any evidence that this defendant’s actions or inactions caused the

constitutional deprivation. Moreover, he has pointed to no case that establishes that the warden of

a correctional institution has a duty to directly supervise medical staff, to set policy for the medical

staff, or to intervene in treatment decisions where he is not informed by medical personnel that

intervention is necessary to prevent a constitutional wrong. Accordingly, even if Casanova’s claims

(continued...)

4

against Green Haven and Clinton was moot); Young v. Coughlin, 866 F.2d 567, 568 n.1 (2nd

Cir. 1989) (plaintiff’s transfer from the facility against which he sought declaratory and

injunctive relief rendered those claims moot); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876-77

(9 Cir. 1986) (after an inmate is transferred, there is neither a “reasonable expectation” nor th

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).

Casanova is no longer an inmate at FPC Montgomery. He is, therefore, no longer

subject to the conditions about which he complains. Because Casanova has been transferred

to another penal institution, there is no longer a case or controversy to litigate, and

Casanova’s claims are due to be dismissed as moot. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis,

5

Case 2:05-cv-00816-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 Page 4 of 6
(...continued) 5

were not moot, he would not prevail on the merits of the claims.

5

440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1982); Cotterall v. Paul,

755 F.2d 777, 780 (11 Cir. 1985) (past exposure to even illegal conduct does not in and of th

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).

III. CONCLUSION

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

Casanova’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice as moot. It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before September 6, 2007. A party must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections

will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed

findings and recommendations shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on

appeal factual findings 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 th

Stein 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). th

Done this 23 day of August, 2007. rd

Case 2:05-cv-00816-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 Page 5 of 6
6

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00816-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 Page 6 of 6