Therefore, Plaintiff's retained deliberate indifference claims seeking injunctive relief have been rendered moot by his transfer to another facility. See Taylor v. Nelson, No. W-19-CA-467, 2020 WL 7048605, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020) (concluding that, upon her transfer from the TDCJ's Lane Murray Unit to the Hobby Unit, an inmate's claims regarding the confiscation of a hijab were rendered moot as she failed to make any general allegations challenging a TDCJ policy and instead focused her claims against employees of the Lane Murray Unit).
Lovelace , 472 F.3d at 190 ("Given the superficial nature of the defendants’ explanation, we cannot at this stage conclude that the asserted interest is compelling as a matter of law."); Taylor v. Nelson , 2020 WL 7048605, at *7, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224222 at *20 (W.D. Tex. Dec.1, 2020) ("In fact, the undisputed summary judgment evidence shows that TDCJ affords every Muslim female offender the opportunity to wear a hijab at all times.")
The undersigned concludes, therefore, that Plaintiff's retaliation claims seeking injunctive relief against Warden Richardson have been rendered moot by his transfer to another facility. See Taylor v. Nelson, No. W-19-CA-467, 2020 WL 7048605, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020) (concluding that, upon her transfer from the TDCJ's Lane Murray Unit to the Hobby Unit, an inmate's claims regarding the confiscation of a hijab were rendered moot as she failed to make any general allegations challenging a TDCJ policy and instead focused her claims against employees of the Lane Murray Unit). Plaintiff filed a separate § 1983 case in which he claimed that McConnell Unit officials had acted with deliberate indifference to his health by exposing him to strobe-capable flashlights.
Because Plaintiff originally named the TDCJ Director and also challenged TDCJ policy in his original complaint regarding both the use of such flashlights and enforcement of any existing system-wide policy, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims have not been rendered moot by his transfer from the McConnell Unit to the Bill Clements Unit. Cf. Taylor v. Nelson, No. W-19-CA-467, 2020 WL 7048605, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020) (concluding that, upon her transfer from the TDCJ's Lane Murray Unit to the Hobby Unit, an inmate's claims regarding the confiscation of a hijab were rendered moot as she failed to make any general allegations challenging a TDCJ policy and instead focused her claims against employees of the Lane Murray Unit). Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Warden Castro's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) (D.E. 112) and Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 116) be denied on the issue of mootness.