IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

STEPHEN CORTEZ, JR. §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23cv66

SKYVIEW UNIT §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Stephen Cortez, Jr., an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of

the case.

Factual Allegations

At the time plaintiff filed this lawsuit he was assigned to the Lewis Unit. He alleges that

conditions at the Lewis Unit, and at the Skyview Unit where he was temporarily assigned, are not

safe. Plaintiff states an officer called him a baby killer and yelled out confidential information he

learned about plaintiff. The officer also told an inmate in the cell across from plaintiff that he would

leave his handcuffs loose so he could attack plaintiff.

Plaintiff states he is only safe at the Stiles Unit. He seeks an injunction directing that he be

placed in a safe environment.

Analysis

Under Article III of the United States Constitution, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to the

adjudication of actual cases and controversies. For there to be an actual controversy, the plaintiff

Case 9:23-cv-00066-MAC-ZJH Document 22 Filed 05/13/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

59
must have a legally cognizable interest, or a personal stake, in the outcome of the lawsuit. Genesis

Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1528 (2013). The doctrine of mootness, which is

embedded in the case or controversy requirement, requires that an actual, ongoing controversy exist

at all stages of federal court proceedings, not merely when the lawsuit is filed. Burke v. Barnes, 479

U.S. 361, 363 (1987). If an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of the required personal

stake in the outcome, the case can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot. Symczyk, 133

S.Ct. at 1528.

Plaintiff has informed the court of his transfer to the Stiles Unit. Plaintiff’s transfer to the

Stiles Unit renders his request for injunctive relief moot. Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th

Cir. 2001); Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Texas, 929 F.3d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).

Moreover, he describes the Stiles Unit as a safe environment. As plaintiff only seeks injunctive

relief, this action should be dismissed without prejudice as moot.

Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice as moot.

Objections

Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3)

served and filed within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

2

Case 9:23-cv-00066-MAC-ZJH Document 22 Filed 05/13/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

60
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

3

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 13th day of May, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00066-MAC-ZJH Document 22 Filed 05/13/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

61