SMITH v. TUCKER
Filing
49
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - The plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. Except to this extent, all pending motions are denied. The clerk must enter judgment and close the file. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/5/2014. (tdl)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
GLENN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 4:12cv590-RH/GRJ
MICHAEL CREWS, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The plaintiff Glenn Smith damaged a tooth while he was an inmate in the
Florida Department of Corrections. A dentist told Mr. Smith his only option was
to have the tooth pulled because the Department did not provide crowns. But later
a different dentist told Mr. Smith the best treatment was to have the tooth filled.
The dentist filled the tooth—a treatment Mr. Smith acknowledges was satisfactory.
Mr. Smith seeks relief in this action against only a single defendant: the
Secretary of the Department of Corrections in his official capacity. And Mr. Smith
seeks only injunctive relief; he does not seek an award of damages. This accords
Case No. 4:12cv590-RH/GRJ
Page 2 of 3
with the governing law. Compare Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (allowing
injunctive relief against a state official based on a violation of federal law) with
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment
bars retrospective relief against a state official-capacity defendant that would be
payable from the state treasury).
Each side has moved for summary judgment. The motions are before the
court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 47, and the
objections, ECF No. 48. I have reviewed the matter de novo.
I assume without deciding that the Department has a custom or policy that
sometimes results in teeth being pulled that could more appropriately be crowned.
I assume without deciding that this is unconstitutional and that, in an appropriate
case, an injunction could be entered correcting the violation. Even so, Mr. Smith is
not entitled to relief; this is not an appropriate case.
Mr. Smith’s damaged tooth has been satisfactorily repaired. There is no
reason to believe Mr. Smith suffered injury, or, more importantly, that Mr. Smith
will in the future suffer injury, as a result of the Department’s alleged custom or
policy denying crowns to those who need them. Mr. Smith thus lacks standing to
pursue this action for injunctive relief. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
U.S. 95, 102, 111 (1983) (holding that a person who had been subjected to a choke
hold in the past had no standing to seek injunctive relief against the city’s practice
Case No. 4:12cv590-RH/GRJ
Page 3 of 3
of using choke holds because there was not a “sufficient likelihood that he will
again be wronged in a similar way”); Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp.,
193 F.3d 1342, 1346 (11th Cir. 1999).
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
The plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing.
Except to this extent, all pending motions are denied. The clerk must enter
judgment and close the file.
SO ORDERED on July 5, 2014.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge
Case No. 4:12cv590-RH/GRJ
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?