Rogers v. Shostak et al

Filing 28

ORDER that defendant's 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is Denied as moot. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's 15 MOTION for a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order be Denied as moot. ( Objections to R&R due by 5/30/2014). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 5/12/2014. (art)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
BILLY ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
vs
OFFICER SHOSTAK, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-213
Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
ORDER AND REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction in connection with a prisoner civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (Doc. 15) and defendant Officer Shostak's motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiffs
motion (Doc. 25).
In his motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, plaintiff alleges
that defendants and other staff at the Warren Correctional Institution are harassing and making death
threats against him in retaliation for filing the instant lawsuit. (Doc. 15, p. 1). Given the serious
nature of plaintiffs allegations, the Court ordered defendants on April28, 2014, to file a response to
plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction within fourteen (14)
days. (Doc. 21).
On May 5, 2014, the Court received plaintiffs notice of change of address. Plaintiff has been
transferred from the Warren Correctional Institution to the Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI) in
Leavittsburg, Ohio and is now residing at TCI. (Doc. 24).
In light of plaintiffs transfer to TCI, his claims for injunctive relief are moot because he no
longer resides at the Warren Correctional Institution. See Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 798-99
(6th Cir. 2009) (citing Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding prisoner's claim for

injunctive and declaratory relief mooted by his transfer to new facility). See also Abdur-Rahman v.

Mich. Dept. ofCorrections, 65 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir. 1995). "Mootness results when events occur
during the pendency of the litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief."

Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n, 983 F.2d 718,724 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Carras v. Williams,
807 F.2d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, the Court is without jurisdiction to grant plaintiff
the injunctive relief he seeks because the defendants and staff at the Warren Correctional Institution
are no longer responsible for plaintiffs safety while he is incarcerated.

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to
plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (Doc. 25) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining
order and/or preliminary injunction (Doc. 15) be DENIED as moot.

Date:

~&~

2/;~/; V

United States Magistrate Judge

1

The Court notes that the transfer to TCI does not moot plaintiffs claims for monetary relief.

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Case No. 1:14-cv-213

BILLY ROGERS,
Plaintiff,

Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs
OFFICER SHOSTAK, et al.,
Defendants

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy ofthe
recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion
for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and
Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing,
the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as
all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District
Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may
forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981).

3

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
' • Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.

X
B. Received by (Printed Name)

D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes

1. Article Addressed to:

If YES, enter delivery address below:

0 No

Dill'( R.o,er.s-$ 6D3-2.o6
, '7;-""" bc1 c( c. rr. -::t::;...,+ .
P9-0t~)G ~v(
Lt.w/ J b~r1 ()(.f &.&·~ 4)-o

1

0 Registered

0 Express Mail
0 Return Receipt for Merchandise

0

0 C.O.D.

Mail
Insured Mall

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
2. Article Number
(TI"ansfer from service label)

. PS Form

3811, February 2004

0 Yes

7011 3500 0001 5345 5673
Domestic Return Receipt

102595.()2-M-1540