Opinion
CIV-21-534-SLP
05-31-2022
JEROME ADRIAN DAVID, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT CROW, et. al., Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GARY M. PURCELL, JUDGE.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's “Motion for Injunctive Relief From: Process and Artificial Foods That is Causing cardiac conditions, chest pains, swelling in hands & ankles etc.” Doc. No. 50. Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, initiated this action on May 21, 2021, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his federal rights while incarcerated at William S. Key Correctional Center (“WKCC”) located in Fort Supply, Oklahoma.
By his current Motion, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against officials at both WKCC, as well as the Howard McLeod Correctional Center (“HMCC”) located in Atoka, Oklahoma. Specifically, he complains that he suffers from heart conditions and the food served at each of these facilities is harmful to his health and not in compliance with the heart healthy diet prescribed by various physicians. Though not a model of clarity, Plaintiff's Motion may also assert these facilities' “heart healthy” menus are not, in fact, compliant with a heart healthy diet.
When Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, he was incarcerated at WKCC. Plaintiff was later transferred to HMCC. Doc. No. 15. Since that time, Plaintiff was transferred again to Jackie Brannon Correctional Center located in McAlester, Oklahoma. Doc. No. 52. Thus, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in either of the facilities against which he now seeks injunctive relief. Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at these facilities, his requests for injunctive relief are moot.
Article III of the Constitution extends the jurisdiction of federal courts only to “live, concrete” cases or controversies. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1109 (10th Cir. 2010). “Article III's requirement that federal courts adjudicate only cases and controversies necessitates that courts decline to exercise jurisdiction where the award of any requested relief would be moot-i.e. where the controversy is no longer live and ongoing.” Cox v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 43 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir. 1994), superseded by statute on other grounds, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, as recognized in Walker v. UPS Inc., 240 F.3d 1268, 1278 (10th Cir. 2001). Consequently, “[m]ootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction.” Rio Grande, 601 F.3d at 1109 (quotations and citations omitted).
“Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief[.]” O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495 (1974). The Tenth Circuit has applied this principle to § 1983 actions brought by inmates, and held that an inmate's transfer from one prison to another generally renders moot any request for injunctive relief against the employees of the original prison concerning the conditions of confinement. See Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1299-1300 (10th Cir. 1997); see also, cf., Wirsching v. Colorado, 360 F.3d 1191, 1196 (10th Cir. 2004) (explaining that inmate's release from prison moots his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief); McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 1999) (recognizing prisoner's release from prison mooted his § 1983 claim for injunctive relief); Love v. Summit Cnty., 776 F.2d 908, 910 n.4 (10th Cir. 1985) (noting transfer of inmate to different prison renders his § 1983 claim for injunctive relief moot).
The mootness doctrine is based on the reality that even if the inmate receives injunctive relief, the defendants from the former prisons would be unable to provide relief to the plaintiff. Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at WKCC or HMCC, his request for injunctive relief is moot.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings, it is recommended the “Motion for Injunctive Relief From: Process and Artificial Foods That is Causing cardiac conditions, chest pains, swelling in hands & ankles etc.” (Doc. No. 50) be DENIED as moot. Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an objection to this Supplemental Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by June 21st , 2022, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The failure to timely object to this Supplemental Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); see, cf., Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived.”).
This Supplemental Report and Recommendation does not dispose of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.