Page 1 of 4

 IN T H E U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BRADLEY J. SAULSBURY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv188/RV/CJK

ANWAR A. CHOWDHURY, 

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Defendant Chowdhury moves to

dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, for lack of standing, and as moot. 

(Doc. 16). Plaintiff opposes dismissal. (Doc. 20). The matter is referred to the

undersigned magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C). After careful consideration, the Court concludes

that defendant’s motion should be granted and this case dismissed as moot.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida penal system currently confined at

Blackwater River Correctional Facility. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff was confined at Walton

Correctional Institution (“Walton CI”) at all times relevant to the complaint. (Doc.

1). Plaintiff’s complaint names one defendant: Anwar Chowdhury, a Physician’s

Case 3:11-cv-00188-RV-CJK Document 21 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

Assistant at Walton CI. (Id., p. 2). Plaintiff claims defendant Chowdhury deprived

him of adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, when

Chowdhury cancelled all of plaintiff’s medications and plaintiff’s appointment to see

a “skin cancer specialist.” (Id., p. 7). Plaintiff complains that “now the cancer is

eating holes in my face.” (Id.). As relief, plaintiffseeks the return of his medications

and an appointment with a skin cancer specialist. (Id., p. 8). 

DISCUSSION

Article III of the Constitution limits the federal courts to deciding “cases” and

“controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. The case-or-controversy requirement means

that “the federal courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over cases where the parties lack

standing, or where the issue in controversy has become moot.” Fla. Wildlife Fed’n,

Inc. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011). The

plaintiff “bears the burden of showing that he has standing for each type of relief

sought.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149,

173 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2009). A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show: 

that he is under threat of suffering “injury in fact” that is concrete and

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural

or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the

defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will

prevent or redress the injury.

Id. (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S.

167, 180-181, 120 S. Ct. 693, 704, 145 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2000)); Stewart v. McGinnis,

5 F.3d 1031, 1037 (7th Cir. 1993) (holding that a plaintiff seeking to obtain

prospective injunctive relief must establish that he has a “personal stake” in the

outcome of the proceedings by showing a “real and immediate” threat of future

injury). Evidence of past wrongs alone is insufficient to merit equitable relief. City

Case No: 3:11cv188/RV/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00188-RV-CJK Document 21 Filed 06/01/12 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1665, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675

(1983); Dudley v. Stewart, 724 F.2d 1493, 1494 (11th Cir. 1984) (“Past exposure to

illegal conduct does not in itself show a pending case or controversy regarding

injunctive relief if unaccompanied by any continuing, present injury or real and

immediate threat of repeated injury.”), abrogated on other grounds, Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995). “If at

any point in the litigation the plaintiff ceases to meet all three requirements for

constitutionalstanding, the case no longer presents a live case or controversy, and the

federal court must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Fla.

Wildlife Fed’n., 647 F.3d at 1302 (citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Chowdhury concern the conditions of

plaintiff’s confinement at Walton CI (the cancellation of plaintiff’s medications and

appointment to see a skin cancer specialist). Plaintiff’s prayer for relief is for

prospective injunctive relief to correct those conditions (the return of plaintiff

medications and plaintiff’s referral to a specialist). Plaintiff’s transfer from Walton

CI to a different correctional facility moots this case. See, e.g., Spears v. Thigpen,

846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that inmate’s claims regarding

treatment at a facility at which inmate was no longer incarcerated were moot); Zatler

v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 399 (11 Cir. 1986) (holding that inmate’s claims for

th

declaratory and injunctive relief against head of prison were mooted by inmate’s

release from prison); Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173 (11 Cir. 1985) (“Absent

th

class certification, an inmate's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief in a section

1983 action fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate has been

transferred. Past exposure to illegal conduct does not constitute a present case or

Case No: 3:11cv188/RV/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00188-RV-CJK Document 21 Filed 06/01/12 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

controversy involving injunctive relief if unaccompanied by any continuing, present

adverse effects.”). Plaintiff failsto allege any of the circumstancesthat might qualify

him for an exception to the mootness doctrine. See Doc. 20. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 16) be GRANTED.

2. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. 

3. That the Clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida this 1st day of June, 2012.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to

object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. §

636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 3:11cv188/RV/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00188-RV-CJK Document 21 Filed 06/01/12 Page 4 of 4