Clay v. Anderson et al (VVV)
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION finding that Plaintiffs only request for relief in his complaint is now moot and the Court is therefore unable to grant the requested relief. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 5/24/2017. (c/m) (MDG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
DAVID FREEMAN CLAY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
KNOX COUNTY,
Defendant.
No.:
3:14-CV-428-TAV-CCS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now before the
Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 24]. For the following reasons, Defendant’s
motion to dismiss [Doc. 24] will be GRANTED to the extent that this action will be
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
In its motion to dismiss [Doc. 24], Defendant correctly points out that the only relief
Plaintiff seeks in his complaint is a temporary restraining order requiring that Plaintiff be
provided adequate indigent legal writing matter to pursue his complaint with this Court until it is
resolved [Id. at 5; Doc. 1 p. 4]. Plaintiff, however, is no longer in Defendant’s custody.
Specifically, on July 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed his most recent notice of change of address in
which Plaintiff notified the Court that he is now incarcerated in the Northwest Correctional
Complex [Doc. 17 p. 1].
As Plaintiff is no longer in the custody of Defendant, his request for injunctive relief is
now moot. Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that claims seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief are moot when the prisoner is no longer in custody of the
institution that allegedly violated the prisoner’s constitutional rights). “Mootness results when
events occur during the pendency of the litigation which render the court unable to grant the
requested relief.”
Carras v. Williams, 807 F.2d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir. 1986).
Court lack
jurisdiction over moot claims, as courts are not “empowered to decide moot questions or abstract
propositions.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). Thus, “‘although there may be
an actual and justiciable controversy at the time the litigation is commenced, once that
controversy ceases to exist, the federal court must dismiss for want of jurisdiction.’” Collins v.
Warden, London Corr. Inst., No. 2:12-CV-093, 2014 WL 1653130, at *3 (S.D. Ohio April 23,
2014) (quoting 15 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 101.9, at 101–
238 (3d ed. 2011).
A court may review questions of jurisdiction sua sponte.
Berger v.
Cuyahoga Cnty. Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1993).
As set forth above, Plaintiff’s only request for relief in his complaint is now moot and the
Court is therefore unable to grant the requested relief. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction
over this matter. Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 24 that any appeal from this judgment would be frivolous and not taken in
good faith.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
ENTER:
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES 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?