Court Opinion

ID: 9896267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:00:59.964281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:45.266360
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7092      Doc: 9        Filed: 11/08/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7092

        DAVID N. FIREWALKER-FIELDS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
        VDOC; CHADWICK DOTSON,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:22-cv-00384-MFU-JCH)

        Submitted: October 26, 2023                                  Decided: November 8, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Nighthorse Firewalker-Fields, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7092      Doc: 9         Filed: 11/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               David N. Firewalker-Fields, a former Virginia state prisoner, appeals the district

        court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.            In his

        complaint, Firewalker-Fields alleged that his inability to earn sentence credits at higher

        rate violated his rights to equal protection and due process, and he sought prospective

        injunctive relief to remedy the alleged constitutional violations. After Firewalker-Fields

        noted this appeal, however, he was released from state prison. Based on that intervening

        event, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

               We “have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction,

        even in the absence of a jurisdictional challenge from one of the parties.” Williamson v.

        Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In fulfilling

        that obligation, we must consider whether an appeal involves a “live case or controversy

        . . . since mootness goes to the heart of the Article III jurisdiction of the courts.”

        Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “A pending lawsuit is rendered moot when the issues presented are no longer

        live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Lighthouse Fellowship

        Church v. Northam, 20 F.4th 157, 162 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Pertinent here, “a case may become moot after the entry of the district court’s judgment

        and while the appeal is pending.” Id. If an event occurs during the pendency of an appeal

        that renders the case moot, then the appeal must be dismissed. Fleet Feet, Inc. v. NIKE,

        Inc., 986 F.3d 458, 463 (4th Cir. 2021).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7092       Doc: 9         Filed: 11/08/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               Because Firewalker-Fields’ complaint exclusively sought injunctive relief

        remedying his inability to earn additional sentence credits toward his release, and because

        Firewalker-Fields has been released from state prison, we conclude that Firewalker-Fields

        lacks a legally cognizable interest in a favorable ruling in this appeal. * See Rendelman v.

        Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]s a general rule, a prisoner’s transfer or

        release from a particular prison moots his claims for injunctive . . . relief with respect to

        his incarceration there.”); Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2007) (“Once an

        inmate is removed from the environment in which he is subjected to the challenged policy

        or practice, absent a claim for damages, he no longer has a legally cognizable interest in a

        judicial decision on the merits of his claim.”).

               Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

               *
                Nothing in the record establishes that the rate at which Firewalker-Fields earned
        sentence credits in the past affects his current supervision or has any collateral
        consequences. And none of the exceptions to mootness apply here. See Lighthouse
        Fellowship Church, 20 F.4th at 162-63, 165 (discussing exceptions to mootness).

                                                      3