Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00472/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00472-1/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

RICHARD HOLLINGSWORTH, )

#276 260, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-472-TMH

) [WO]

KIM THOMAS, )

A.D.O.C. COMMISSIONER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Meigs, Alabama, when this action commenced, filed the above-captioned case pursuant to

11

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is presently before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff seeks to have Defendants cease their provision of

inadequate health care and provide him with sufficient and appropriate treatment to alleviate

his daily agony from a painful hernia. (Doc. No. 6.) As directed, Defendant Nurse Marianne

Baker filed a response to Plaintiff's request for issuance of a preliminary injunction. (Doc.

No. 18.) Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and Defendant

Baker’s response thereto (Doc. No. 18), the court concludes that the request for a preliminary

injunction is due to be denied as moot because Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the

Holman Correctional Facility away from Defendants who work at the Kilby Correctional

Plaintiff was recently transferred to the Holman Correctional Facility located in Atmore,

1

Alabama.

Case 2:12-cv-00472-WHA-TFM Document 23 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 3
Facility .

I. DISCUSSION

In a § 1983 action filed by a prisoner, a request for injunctive and declaratory relief

becomes moot upon the transfer or release of that prisoner from the facility where his cause

of action arose. Spears v. Thigpen, 846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11 Cir. 1988) (quoting Wahl v.

th

McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173 (11 Cir. 1985) (“[t]his court has clearly stated the following:

th

‘[a]bsent class certification, an 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.’ ”).

Moreover, “[e]quitable 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,

th

“[w]hen 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. Accordingly,

the court finds that Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is moot.

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The motion for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff (Doc. No. 6) be DENIED

as moot;

2. This case be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00472-WHA-TFM Document 23 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 3
It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 24, 2012 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will

not be considered by the District Court.

The parties are further advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the

court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed

findings in the Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues addressed in the Recommendation 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 v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982); see

th th

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding

th

precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done, this 9 day of July 2012.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-00472-WHA-TFM Document 23 Filed 07/09/12 Page 3 of 3