Wash v. Rasco et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 9 Final Judgment. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 5/28/14. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
WILLIE WASH
PLAINTIFF
v.
No. 3:14CV54-SA-DAS
SHERIFF BILL RASCO, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint of Willie Wash, who
challenges the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the purposes of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, the court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed this suit. For
the reasons set forth below, the instant case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
Discussion
Wash, who was confined as a pretrial detainee in the DeSoto County Detention Center at the
time in question, alleges various constitutional violations, including denial of medical care and general
conditions of confinement. He requests as relief: (1) that the defendants begin issuing sheets for
inmates’ mattresses, (2) that only medical personnel make medical determinations regarding inmates,
(3) that someone trained in the law assist inmates with their legal issues – and that the inmates have
access to the Mississippi Litigation Manual, (4) that diabetic inmates be given snacks between meals,
and (5) that the jail be evaluated by the health department. Wash has thus requested only injunctive
relief. He has since been convicted for shoplifting and is currently serving his sentence at the Central
Mississippi Correctional Facility in Pearl, Mississippi.
Injunctive Relief
Once an inmate is moved away from the facility from which his complaints arise, his requests
for injunctive relief become moot. Herman v. Holliday, 238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001). That is what has
happened in the present case. Wash recites a litany of complaints against the defendants in this case,
but he seeks only injunctive relief. As Wash seeks only injunctive relief in this case, it must be
dismissed as moot.
Previous Sanctions Imposed Upon Wash
Wash included a paper copy of the docket from federal prisoner litigation he filed in
Tennessee. The court noticed that, in docket entry 17 of Wash v. Gilles, et al., 2:98CV2778-BBD
(W.D. Tenn.), the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee imposed a
significant sanction upon Wash. Because of Wash’s myriad relentless, voluminous, nonsensical, and
frivolous filings, our sister court restricted Wash’s ability to file cases in the following manner:
(1) The Clerk of the Court may not place on the docket documents in any case without an order
from the court, except a one-page notice of appeal in the present case;
(2) Wash may not file any new cases without permission from the court;
(3) Wash may not submit any new cases except by using the proper form from the court;
(4) Wash may not attach any documents of his own making to the forms from the court, though he
may attach exhibits he did not prepare, such as copies of grievances or disciplinary
proceedings; and
(5) Should Wash attempt to submit documents to the court in violation of this order, they will be
returned to him, unfiled
The Western District of Tennessee imposed other restrictions, but those were limited to cases
previously filed in that court.
Given Wash’s extensive history of frivolous filings in Tennessee, this court will reciprocate the
sanctions imposed there, as outlined above. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum
opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this, the 28th day of May, 2014.
/s/ Sharion Aycock_________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
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?