Opinion
Case No. 02-74367
July 31, 2003
OPINION
Plaintiff Michael Duane Smith ("Smith"), formerly a prisoner under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a two count complaint against Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC") alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On January 28, 2003, MDOC filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. On March 11, 2003, Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment and a motion to amend the complaint to add William Overton, Director of MDOC, as a Defendant in this action. On May 20, 2003, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend. Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for mootness filed June 5, 2003. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss for mootness is granted.
Discussion
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he was denied participation in the MDOC's Technical Rule Violation (TRV) program "due to his disability." (First Am. Compl. at ¶ 22). Plaintiff is deaf. (First Am. Compl. at ¶ 4). Plaintiff was found ineligible for the TRV program due to his seizures, mental health issues, and hearing impairment. (First. Am. Compl. at ¶ 16). The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the "policies and practices of the Defendant[s] violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act." ( See First Am. Compl.). Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from engaging in discriminatory practices based on disability. ( See First Am. Compl.).
The TRV program is for qualified parolees who have committed certain parole violations. Participation in the program is in lieu of being returned to prison. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ. J. at 2). Defendants describe the TRV program as "an intensive, physically demanding, 90-day program involving 24-hour supervision and structured programming . . . In order to be eligible for admission to the program, the parolee must not have a physical or mental condition that would be inconsistent with the rigorous demands of the program." (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ. J. at 2).
Defendants argue that this action should be dismissed because Smith is no longer under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss for Mootness at 2). Smith was discharged without parole on February 16, 2003. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss for Mootness Ex. 1 at ¶ 4). Therefore, Defendants argue that there is no "case or controversy" before the Court.
In response, Plaintiff, without citation to case law, argues that the "controversy is very much alive" because the alleged discriminatory policy "must be litigated to adjudicate whether it is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act." (Pl.'s Resp. at 2-3). The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
Plaintiff's complaint does not allege a violation of the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.
Under Article III of the Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction only over "actual cases and controversies." McPherson v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir. 1997); U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. "It has long been settled that a federal court has no authority "to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.'" Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 449 (1992) (citation omitted).
It is plain that Smith's discharge from parole renders this case moot. It is undisputed that Smith is no longer under the jurisdiction of the MDOC and that he is ineligible for the TRV program. The issue before this Court is Plaintiff's participation in the TRV program. A decision by this Court as to whether Defendants violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by barring Plaintiff's participation in that program is a moot question. See also Ashley v. Butz, 463 F. Supp. 165 (E.D. Va. 1976) (dismissing as moot constitutional challenges to federal and state welfare food stamps regulations where plaintiff obtained employment and withdrew from the food stamp program during the pendency of the suit).
Plaintiff argues, somewhat fatalistically in this Court's view, that he seeks to ensure that the MDOC does not discriminate against him again in the future. (Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss for Mootness at 3). However, as the Defendants point out, in order for this to occur, Plaintiff will have to commit another crime, be sentenced to prison, be paroled, then violate a parole rule to become eligible for the TRV program. In order to satisfy the "capable of repetition yet evading review' exception to mootness, there must be a " reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 349 (1975) (per curiam) (emphasis added). In this case, there is no such expectation.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this case is dismissed as moot. A judgment consistent with opinion shall issue forthwith.