Crook v. Estes et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 5/7/15. (SAC )

FILED
2015 May-07 PM 02:29
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

B.C.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN DEWAYNE ESTES,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 5:13-cv-00344-KOB-JHE
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 1, 2014, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his
complaint should not be dismissed as moot because he has received the relief he
sought. (Doc. 44). Plaintiff failed to respond to the magistrate judge’s order within
the allotted time.
The only remaining claims before this court are Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
claims against Defendants Truett, Wright, and Crocker concerning denial of hormone
therapy. Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief in the form of hormone therapy.1
On October 21, 2014, Defendants Truett, Wright, and Crocker filed a
supplemental Special Report stating that, on May 14, 2014, a psychiatrist diagnosed
1

On March 25, 2015, the magistrate judge denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend
the complaint to also request monetary damages. (Doc. 43).

Plaintiff with Gender Identity Disorder. (Doc. 36-1, Truett Aff. at 9). Medical staff
subsequently scheduled Plaintiff for an appointment with an endocrinologist at
University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital for October 9, 2014. (Id.).
On October 9, 2014, Dr. Amy Warriner, an endocrinologist, examined Plaintiff
and diagnosed him with gender dysphoria. (Doc. 36-1 at 16). Dr. Warriner
recommended “Estradiol 1 mg daily; Spironolactone 50 mg daily – check Serum K
in 2 months; if [greater than] 5-0, increase Spiron to 100 mg daily[.]” (Id. at 19). On
October 11, 2014, medical staff began administering hormone therapy to Plaintiff as
Dr. Warriner recommended. (Id.).
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts. Federal
courts may only rule on a claim when an actual case or controversy exists. U.S.
Const. Art. III, § 2. When an action becomes moot, it no longer presents a justiciable
case or controversy within the meaning of Article III. Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S.
171, 172-73 (1977). On mootness, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals explains:
A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation,
such as where there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will
occur again or where interim relief or events have eradicated the effect
of the alleged violation.
Saladin v. Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 693 (11th Cir. 1987). Moreover, “[p]ast
exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a pending case or controversy
2

regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied by any continuing, present injury or real
and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Cotterall v. Paul, 755 F.2d 777, 780 (11th
Cir. 1985).
Since Plaintiff initiated this action, Dr. Warriner has examined Plaintiff for
Gender Identity Disorder, and Defendants are now administering Dr. Warriner’s
recommended hormone therapy treatment to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the injunctive
relief Plaintiff seeks in his Complaint is now MOOT. No actual case or controversy
exists over which this court may exercise jurisdiction.
Because Plaintiff’s remaining claims are now MOOT, the court DISMISSES
this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2015.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3