1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

THOMAS EARL CRINER §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv175

HELEN BOWMAN, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff Thomas Criner, a former inmate of the Henderson County Jail proceeding pro 

se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his 

constitutional rights. The lawsuit was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules 

for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. The named Defendants are 

persons identified as Helen Bowman, “Ms. Debbie,” and Mary Stephenson, Captain Cody Barnett, 

Major David Faught, and Sheriff Botie Hillhouse. Plaintiff does not provide job titles, positions or 

other identifying information for Bowman, Ms. Debbie, or Stephenson.

I. The Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff filed his complaint in the form of a motion for injunctive relief. See Muhammed v. 

Wiles, 841 F.App’x 681, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 742, 2021 WL 112523 (5th Cir.,January 12, 2021)

(noting that the district court construed plaintiff’s memorandum seeking injunctive relief as a 

complaint because otherwise, the case could not have commenced); Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. He statesthat 

he is a chronic diabetic with low blood sugar and asked for injunctive relief to reinstate his bedside 

aid protein supplement or sugar aid, when needed or at reach for emergencies. Plaintiff complains 

that the facility medical staff has canceled the peanut butter bedside jar given for the purpose of 

preventing the possibility of a diabetic coma. Plaintiff also saysthat he seeks a permanent injunction 

ordering the medical staff to provide bedside aid for low blood sugar emergencies.

Case 6:23-cv-00175-JCB-KNM Document 23 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

95
2

The Defendants Sheriff Hillhouse, Cody Barnett, and Mary Stephenson have filed a motion 

to dismiss stating that Plaintiff has filed a notice of change of address stating that he is no longer 

confined in the Henderson County Jail, but has been sent to the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice - Correctional Institutions Division. As a result, the Defendants state that Plaintiff’srequest 

for injunctive relief is moot. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeks injunctive relief in the form of orders requiring the provision of 

items such as peanut butter or protein supplements to aid in controlling his diabetes. However, 

Plaintiff is no longer confined in the Henderson County Jail, where the claims arose. The Fifth 

Circuit has held that an inmate’s transfer to another facility renders his claims for declaratory and 

injunctive relief moot, unless he can show a reasonable likelihood that he will be transferred back 

to the original facility and again subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional actions. Herman v. 

Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir.

2002); Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s 

claims for injunctive relief against personnel at the Henderson County Jail were rendered moot by 

his transfer from the jail to TDCJ-CID, inasmuch as he does not allege, much less show, that any 

of the named Defendants have the power to affect the medical care he receives in TDCJ-CID.

Plaintiff offers nothing to suggest a transfer back to the Henderson County Jail is likely, or 

that the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine otherwise 

applies. In order for this exception to apply, the litigant must show that the challenged action is too 

short in duration to be fully litigated and that there is a reasonable expectation that the aggrieved 

party will again be subject to the challenged action. Spencer v. Kenma, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 

140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). A mere physical or theoretical possibility that an alleged action willrecur 

is not enough to meet the second prong; rather, the litigant must show a reasonable expectationor 

demonstrated probability that the same controversy will recur. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 

102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982). Plaintiff has made no such showing. Because his claims

Case 6:23-cv-00175-JCB-KNM Document 23 Filed 10/10/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

96
3

for injunctive relief were rendered moot by his transfer to TDCJ-CID, and these claims comprise 

the entirety of his complaint, the lawsuit should be dismissed as moot.

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket no. 19) be 

granted and the above-styled civil action be dismissed without prejudice as moot.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendations shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objectionswithin 14 days after being served with a copy.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed finding is found. 

An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of October, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00175-JCB-KNM Document 23 Filed 10/10/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

97