Skinner v. Collier

Full title: JESSE PAUL SKINNER v. BRIAN COLLIER, ET AL.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division

Date published: Mar 24, 2023

Civil Action 9:18-cv-139 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 9:18-cv-139

03-24-2023

JESSE PAUL SKINNER v. BRIAN COLLIER, ET AL.

CHRISTINE L. STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHRISTINE L. STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jesse Paul Skinner, an inmate at the Goree Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. This matter wa referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for conclusions of law, an recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction (Doc. #135.). Plaintiff ask that Defendants not be permitted to expose him to extreme high temperature conditions.

At the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint and his Motion, he was incarcerated at th Wainwright Unit. He subsequently notified the court that he has been transferred to the Goree Uni (Doc. # 156.).

A transfer to another correctional facility renders a claim for injunctive relief based o conditions at a litigant's former correctional facility moot. Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 66 (5th Cir. 2001); Tuft v. The State of Tex., 410 Fed.Appx. 770, 778 (5th Cir. 2011). As Plaintiff ha been transferred since he filed his motion, his request for a preliminary injunction should be denie as moot.

Recommendation

Plaintiff's motion requesting a preliminary injunction should be denied as moot.

Objections

Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained herein within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.