Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60488/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60488-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Ball
Appellee
Erik Barnes
Appellee
Jamario Brady
Appellee
Joshua Clay
Appellee
Christopher Coleman
Appellee
Lamarcus Curry
Appellee
Charleston DePriest
Appellee
Marshall L. Fisher, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Appellant
Craig Kincaid
Appellee
Lemarsha Readus
Appellee
Cozy Scott
Appellee
Latravis Smith
Appellee
Brian Webster
Appellee
Fredrick White
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60488

CHARLESTON DEPRIEST, as father and next friend of C.B. a minor; ERIC 

BALL, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; ERIK 

BARNES, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals; 

JAMARIO BRADY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated 

individuals; JOSHUA CLAY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated 

individuals; CHRISTOPHER COLEMAN, on behalf of himself and all 

similarly situated individuals; LAMARCUS CURRY, on behalf of himself and 

all similarly situated individuals; CRAIG KINCAID, on behalf of himself and 

all similarly situated individuals; LEMARSHA READUS, on behalf of himself 

and all similarly situated individuals; COZY SCOTT, on behalf of himself and 

all similarly situated individuals; LATRAVIS SMITH, on behalf of himself 

and all similarly situated individuals; BRIAN WEBSTER, on behalf of 

himself and all similarly situated individuals; FREDRICK WHITE, on behalf 

of himself and all similarly situated individuals, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

MARSHALL L. FISHER, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:10-CV-663

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60488 Document: 00513694211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2016
No. 15-60488

2

PER CURIAM:*

Prisoners at the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility filed this lawsuit in 

November 2010, challenging what they referred to as the “barbaric, 

unconstitutional conditions” of confinement and alleging that Walnut Grove

was violating their Eighth Amendment rights. In March 2012, the district

court entered a consent decree, approving and adopting substantive remedies 

to which the parties had agreed. In 2015, Walnut Grove filed a motion to 

terminate the decree in its entirety, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, claiming that prospective relief was no longer necessary. In July, the 

district court entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on Walnut 

Grove’s motion to terminate. Marshall Fisher, the Mississippi Department of 

Corrections (MDOC), appealed. On September 15, 2016, while the appeal was 

pending, the MDOC closed Walnut Grove, and all prisoners were transferred 

to other facilities within the state. We invited the parties to address whether 

the closure of Walnut Grove rendered the appeal moot.

It is well settled that mootness is a threshold jurisdictional inquiry. See

Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988) (“Article III of the Constitution 

limits federal courts to the adjudication of actual, ongoing controversies 

between litigants.”). In general, a claim becomes moot “when the issues 

presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in 

the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam). “If a 

dispute has been resolved, or if it has evanesced because of changed 

circumstances, it is considered moot.” Louisiana Envtl. Action Network v. U.S. 

E.P.A., 382 F.3d 575, 580-81 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing American Medical Assoc. v. 

Bowen, 857 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1988)). Here, the closure of Walnut Grove has 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 15-60488 Document: 00513694211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2016
No. 15-60488

3

rendered the consent decree inoperative, resolving the dispute over its 

continued enforcement and mooting Fisher’s appeal of the district court’s 

judgment. See id.; see also Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002).

Because the issue is moot, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.1 However, “a determination of mootness neither precludes nor is 

precluded by an award of attorneys’ fees.” Doe v. Marshall, 622 F.2d 118, 120 

(5th Cir. 1980). The district court therefore retains jurisdiction to rule on the 

plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

 

1 Fisher urges us to vacate the district court’s judgment if we find that the appeal is 

moot. The Supreme Court has emphasized that vacatur is an “extraordinary” and equitable 

remedy. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 25-26 

(1994). The burden is on “the party seeking relief from the status quo” of the lower court 

judgment to demonstrate “equitable entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of vacatur.” 

See id. at 26. Fisher has not met this burden. 

 Case: 15-60488 Document: 00513694211 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2016