Williams v. Lynch et al
ORDER denying as moot 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 19 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction; denying 47 MOTION for Leave to File Rule 4 Requirements; denying as moot 48 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 52 MOTION to Amend/Correct; and denying 53 MOTION Ex Parte Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 5/15/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony D. Williams, #14113-112,
Ms. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General;
Mr. Travis Bragg, C.E.O. Warden; Ian
Connor, National Inmate Appeal
Coordinator; M. Holliday, Chief
Dietitian; M. Furman, Associate
Warden; P. Kelly, Associate Warden;
Mr. Hicks, Institutional Captain; S.K.
Brosier, Admini_Remedy Coordinator;
Mr. Rich, CMC Coordinator; T.
Whitehead, Unit Manager; J. Ackerman, )
Case Manager; Mrs. Roberts, Case
Manager; Mrs. Bennett, Secretary; Ms.
Prince, Correctional Officer; J. Onuoha; )
Mr. Padilla, Food Service
Administrator; John/Jane Doe,
Designation and Sentence Computation )
Unit Team; Ms. Murberry; United States )
of America; Mr. Cox; Mr. Parra; Mr.
Davis, Unit Manager; and Mr.
C/A No.: 1:16-3043-RMG-SVH
Anthony D. Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings this action alleging a violation of his constitutional rights while at FCIBennetsville. This matter comes before the court on the following motions filed by
Plaintiff prior to his transfer to FCI-Williamsburg: (1) motion for a preliminary injunction
regarding alleged retaliation at FCI-Bennettsville [ECF No. 18]; (2) motion for a
preliminary injunction regarding his diet [ECF No. 19]; (3) motion for a preliminary
injunction related to conditions of confinement at FCI-Bennettsville [ECF No. 20]; (4)
motion for clerk of court to serve documents [ECF No. 47]; (5) motion to expedite
motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 48]; (6) motion to amend motion to expedite
motion for preliminary injunction [ECF 52]; and (7) motion for ex parte motion [ECF
No. 53]. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.).
Motions related to injunctive relief [ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20, 48, 52]
In his motions for injunctive relief, Plaintiff alleges Defendants have retaliated
against him for filing grievances or legal claims [ECF No. 18], have failed to comply
with his doctor’s recommendation regarding his diet [ECF No. 19], and have failed to
remedy alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement at FCI-Bennettsville [ECF
No. 20]. Plaintiff has since been transferred to FCI-Williamsburg. [ECF No. 61]. Because
Plaintiff has been transferred to another facility, his requests for declaratory and
injunctive relief related to his confinement at FCI-Bennettsville are moot. See Incumaa v.
Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286–87 (4th Cir. 2007) (finding that a prisoner’s transfer or release
from a particular prison moots his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief with
respect to the conditions of his confinement there); see also Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d
820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (finding that a transfer rendered moot a prisoner’s claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief, but not claims for damages); Taylor v. Rogers, 781 F.2d
1047, 1048 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1986) (same). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions related to his
requests for injunctive relief are denied as moot.
Motion for the Clerk to serve filings
Plaintiff requests that the Clerk of Court serve defendants with documents he files.
[ECF No. 47]. Plaintiff has previously been advised that:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, any documents filed subsequent to the initial
pleading must be served on parties. Unless otherwise ordered, service of
subsequently filed documents on a defendant represented by an attorney is
made on the attorney. Service on attorneys who have made an appearance
in this court is effected by the court’s Electronic Case Filing system
through a computer generated notice of electronic filing. However, prior to
defendants’ attorney making an appearance in this court, Plaintiff must
serve defendants with any documents Plaintiff files subsequent to the initial
pleading and file a certificate of service that states who was served, what
document was served, and how the document was served.
[ECF No. 36]. Therefore, Plaintiff need only serve by mail parties who have not had an
attorney make an appearance in this case. To the extent Plaintiff requests the court serve
motions or other filings beyond his complaint on defendants who have not had an
attorney make an appearance on the docket, his motion is denied.
Motion for an ex parte motion [ECF No. 53]
In his motion, Plaintiff requests affidavits he submitted from other inmates be
sealed from the public docket and defendants. Plaintiff provides no legal authority for this
request. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to submit documents ex parte is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 15, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?