P l ai nt i f f i nco rre c t l y i d ent i f

i ed D avi d son C o unt y Sheri f f D aron H al l as “D ari n” H al l i n t he cap t i o n of t he 1 P et i t i o n and t hrougho ut t he p et i t i o n.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBr ie fs D ec em be r 10, 200 8
JOSEP H MO RGA N v. DA RIN HA LL ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 08C-1339 Thom as W. Brothers, Judge

No. M2008- 01231-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Fe bruary 4, 2009

A former i nmate in the Davidson County jail filed a Petition for Permanent Injunction ag ainst the Davidson County

Sheriff a nd the Davidson County

Sheriff’ s Offic e in which he alleg ed he had bee n mistreated while inc arc erated. The de fenda nts moved to dismi ss the forme r i nmate’s pe tition for injunctive relief

on the ground that he w as no long er inc arc erated, and thus his action for injunctive relief was moot. The plaintiff f ailed to re spond to the motion and did not attend the hearing on the motion. The trial court grante d the defe ndants’ motion to dismiss from which the plaintiff appe aled. F ind ingno e rr or , w e a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivered t h e o p i n i o n of the c ourt, in which A NDY D. B E NN E TT and R I C HAR D H. D I NK I NS , J J ., joined.
J oseph Morg an, Na shville, Tennessee , Pro Se. Kevin C. Klein, Andre w D. McClana han and Christopher

M. L acke y , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the Appellee , Sheriff D aron H all and Da vidson County

Sheriff’ s Offic e. 1T en n. C t

. A p p
. R

. 1 0 st ates: 2

T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f a ll ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in t h e c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by m e m o ra nd um op i ni o n when a f o rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no prec edent i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y m em o randum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , ” shal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed o r re lied on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. -2- M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION 2
J oseph Morga

n (“Plaintiff” ) filed a P etition for Permanent I njunction in the Circuit Court for Davidson County

on April 21, 2008 ag ainst the S h er i ff o f Davidson County and the Da

vidson C o un ty S h e r i f

f ’ s O f f i c e ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, “ D e f

e n d an t s ” ) f

o l l o w i n gh i s r e l e a s e f

r o mth e i r c u s t o dy.
P lai nt iff a lle g e s in

the Pe tit ion

tha t whil e he wa s in

De fe nd ants ’ c us tod

y that D e fe nd ants : (1 ) u se d ja ilh ou se inf

or mants to “ ha

ra ss, ann oy , a

nd atta c k” him ; (2) hel d “ ill e g a l and me ri tle ss” dis c ipl ina ry bo ard he ari ng s; (3 ) put fo re ign obje c ts suc h as bod y fl uid s, c he mic a l c le anin ga g e nts , and metal shavings in his food; and (4) turned off the l ights in his cell from the control room so he was not able to see “ bad food.” The sole r elief sought in this action is that of injunctive re lief.
On J une 3, 2008, De fenda nts moved to dismi ss the Petition for Permane nt Injunction for lac k of subject matter

jurisdiction. In their motion, Defe ndan t s co n t ended that Plainti ff wa s no longe r in the custody

of the Da vidson County Sheriff’ s Offic e; there fore , his petition for injunctive relief was moot

. Pl a inti f

f f a il e d to r e s p o n d to D e f

e n d an ts ’ mo ti o n o r a

p p e ar at th e h e ar in g
. When the motion came on for

hearing, the trial court dism i s s ed t h e petition with prejudice on J uly 8, 2008. This appea l followed.
We find no merit to Plainti ff’ s appea l for two re asons. Plaintiff failed to re spond to the motion to di smiss or appear at the hearing and therefor e has waived the issue. Fur ther, Plaintiff’s reque st for injunctive re lief is moot as he wa s no longe r inca rce rate d. Acc ording ly , P l ai n t iff’s petition was proper ly

dismiss ed. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med, and this matter is re manded with costs of appea l assessed a g ainst Plainti ff, Joseph Morg an.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CL EMENT, JR ., J UDGE