Opinion
CIV-20-919-F
10-19-2021
DOROTHY ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. S. YOUNG, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHON T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Dorothy Robinson, a federal inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of her civil rights while housed at the Federal Transfer Center (FTC) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (ECF No. 6). Following initial screening, a sole claim remains-Plaintiff's individual capacity claim under the Eighth Amendment against both Defendants Terrell and Carney seeking injunctive relief in the form of the issuance of a CPAP machine. (ECF No. 23:5). A letter filed by the Court on March 8, 2021 informed the Court that Plaintiff had been transported from the FTC to Danbury-FCI, in Danbury, Connecticut. (ECF No. 21).
“An action arising under Bivens . . . provides a means by which a prisoner may challenge the conditions of his or her confinement.” Powell v. Fleming, 27 Fed.Appx. 970, 973 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997)).
Because Plaintiff is no longer housed at the FTC, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff's transfer mooted her claim for injunctive relief. “Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite 1 to federal court jurisdiction.” Schell v. OXY USA Inc., 814 F.3d 1107, 1113-14 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
I. THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE
“The crux of the mootness inquiry in an action for prospective relief is whether the court can afford meaningful relief that will have some effect in the real world.” Rezaq v. Nalley, 677 F.3d 1001, 1008 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted). A claim will be “deemed moot unless a proper judicial resolution settles some dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant toward the plaintiff.” McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). “When a prisoner files suit against prison officials who work in the institution in which [s]he is incarcerated, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief ... and then that prisoner is subsequently transferred to another prison or released from the prison system, courts are presented with a question of possible mootness.” Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1027 (10th Cir. 2011).
The question of mootness concerns whether “a definite controversy exists throughout the litigation and whether conclusive relief may still be conferred by the court despite the lapse of time and any change of circumstances that may have occurred since the commencement of the action.” Id. at 1024. If a claim is moot, or becomes moot throughout the course of the litigation, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bur. of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1109 (10th Cir. 2010). The Court may consider sua sponte whether to dismiss moot claims. See, e.g., McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Because mootness is a matter of jurisdiction, a court may raise the issue sua sponte.”). Because Ms. Robinson is no 2 longer at the FTC and no longer under the care of Defendants Terrell and/or Carney, granting Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief would have no effect in the real world, nor would it affect the behavior of the Defendants toward the Plaintiff. Accordingly, absent a narrow exception to the doctrine of mootness, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is moot.
II. EXCEPTION TO MOOTNESS
A narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is available for a special category of disputes that are “ ‘capable of repetition' ” while “ ‘evading review.' ” Turner v. Rogers, 534 U.S. 431, 439 (2011) (quoting Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911)). A dispute falls into that category, and a case based on that dispute remains live, if: “ ‘(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again.' ” Id. at 220 (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)). Ms. Robinson bears the burden of establishing both elements of this two-prong test. Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1035 (10th Cir. 2011). And “a mere physical or theoretical possibility” that the complaining party may be subjected to the same action again is insufficient to satisfy the second prong of the test. See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 479 (1982). Rather, there must be a “reasonable expectation” or a “demonstrated probability” that the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party. Id. (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, supra, at 149); see also Magee v. Waters, 810 F.2d 451, 452 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that a prisoner's transfer moots his request for injunctive relief for denial of access to courts in 3 the facility from which he was transferred); Beyah v. Coughlin, 789 F.2d 986, 988 (2nd Cir. 1986) (holding similarly in the context of alleged deprivations of constitutional rights).
Ms. Robinson has not filed anything with the Court which would suggest that she meets the exception to the mootness doctrine. As a result, the Court should find Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief moot, as the remaining Defendants cannot effect the injunctive relief sought by Ms. Robinson. See Toevs v. Milyard, 563 Fed.Appx. 640, 645 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Transfer generally moots an inmate's claims for remedies of declaratory and injunctive relief.”); Davis v. GEO Group Corrections, Inc., No. 16-462, 2018 WL 1406588, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2018) (“because Plaintiff is no longer housed in a facility owned and operated by the GEO Group or staffed by employees hired by CCS, these Defendants cannot effect the injunctive relief he seeks, and his requests for injunctive relief are moot.”), adopted Davis v. GEO Group Corrections, Inc., No, 16-462, 2018 WL 1404404, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 18, 2018). Because the remaining claim seeks injunctive relief only, the Court should dismiss the Complaint.
III. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Based upon the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the Court DISMISS the Complaint as moot.
The parties are advised of their right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by November 5, 2021, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The parties are further advised that failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate 4 review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
IV. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter. 5