Asemani v. Graham

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 6/10/2015. (6/10/2015)(ko, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BILLY G. ASEMANI, # 339-096

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

WARDEN RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR.

*

Defendant

Civil Action No. RDB-15-651

*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending are self-represented plaintiff Billy G. Asemani’s Emergency Motion seeking
injunctive relief, the court-ordered Response filed by counsel for the Division of Correction and
Asemani’s Reply. (ECF 1, 5, 7).

The matter is ready for disposition and a hearing is

unnecessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For reasons set forth herein, this case will be
dismissed as moot.
On March 9, 2015, Asemani, an inmate at Western Correctional Institution, filed this
Emergency Petition to enjoin his removal from protective custody. (ECF 1). On March 19,
2015, this Court directed counsel for the Division of Correction to file an expedited response to
Asemani’s claims that he faced imminent harm if returned to the general prison population. (ECF
3).
The Response and accompanying declaration executed by James Wilson, a Correctional
Case Management Supervisor, indicated that on March 13, 2015, Wilson reviewed Asemani’s
status and determined that he should remain on protective custody. (ECF 5, 5-1). This Court

construed the Response as a Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted Asemani twenty-one
days to reply.
On April 20, 2015, Asemani filed a Reply in which he stated “the matter at hand is
rendered moot” and Respondent’s motion for summary judgment’ should be granted. (ECF 7, p.
1).
DISCUSSION
District courts must dismiss cases and motions as moot when they do not involve a “case
or controversy.” Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365, 370 (4th Cir. 2012)
(“mootness principles derive from Article III of the Constitution, which mandates that federal
courts adjudicate only disputes involving a case or controversy”) (citations omitted)). The
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has explained that “one such circumstance
mooting a claim arises when the claimant receives the relief he or she sought to obtain through
the claim.” Friedman, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002).
Under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution, federal courts have jurisdiction to hear
and decide “cases” or “controversies.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). This case-orcontroversy requirement must be met “through all stages of federal jurisdiction proceedings.”
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). An actual controversy must exist
“at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Davis v. Fed. Election
Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724, 732 (2008). When “the claimant receives the relief he or she sought to
obtain through the claim,” the action becomes moot and there is no longer an active case or
controversy through which the Court may assert jurisdiction. Friedman's Inc., 290 F.3d at 197;
Mobley v. Acme Mkts, Inc., 473 F.Supp. 851, 858 (D.Md. 1979) (“[M]ootness [is] derived from

2

the Constitution, specifically Article III, which requires a ‘case or controversy’ as the
fundamental ingredient of subject matter jurisdiction.”).
As Asemani remains in protective custody, consistent with the recommendation of his
institutional case manager, he has been provided the relief sought in his request for injunctive
relief: his continued placement on protective custody. Thus, his request for injunctive relief is
moot.1 Asemani cannot demonstrate that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm nor the other
factors necessary for issuance of a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, this matter will be
dismissed as moot.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, this Court will dismiss this case as moot by separate Order to follow.

June 10, 2015
Date

_____/s/__________________________
RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Further, Asemani has not met his burden to show that he faced immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage
necessary to warrant issuance of emergency injunctive relief under the standard set forth in Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20–23(2008) (the party seeking the preliminary injunction must
demonstrate: (1) by a “clear showing” that he is likely to succeed on the merits at trial; (2) he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an
injunction is in the public interest).

3