Akins v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 5 . Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 9/29/14. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRANCE! AKINS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-1040-JDT-egb

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff Terrance! Akins, who was, at the time, an inmate at
the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accompanied by, inter alia, a motion for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) The Court issued
an order on August 15, 2014, dismissing portions of the complaint and directing that process
be issued for Defendants Corrections Corporation of America, Michael Bradshaw, Dr.
Melissa Breitling, and Alicia Cox. (ECF No. 9.) The claims remaining include Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment claims for lack of adequate medical care and his claims of neglience,
medical negligence, and medical malpractice under Tennessee law.
In his motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Defendants
to have him evaluated by appropriate outside medical specialists to diagnose and treat his

conditions. However, although Plaintiff has not yet notified the Court of his change of
address, the TDOC’s online felony offender database shows that he has been released
because his sentence expired on September 25, 2014.1
“Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power to the adjudication of ‘Cases’
or ‘Controversies.’” MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 137 (2007) (citing
U.S. Const., art. III, § 2). “[A] federal court has no authority to give opinions upon moot
questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect
the matter in issue in the case before it.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506
U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Coalition for Gov’t
Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., 365 F.3d 435, 458 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Under the ‘case
or controversy’ requirement, we lack authority to issue a decision that does not affect the
rights of the litigants.”). The mootness question turns on whether a federal court can afford
a litigant any “effectual relief.” Coalition for Gov’t Procurement, 365 F. 3d at 458.
Because Plaintiff is no longer in the custody of the TDOC, his request for injunctive
relief is moot. Moore v. Curtis, 68 F. App’x 561, 562 (6th Cir. 2003) (claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief against prison staff moot when inmate transferred to another facility);
Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (same); Tramber v. Pleasant, No. 4:12CVP31-M, 2012 WL 4594339, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 2, 2012) (inmate’s claim for a transfer and
medical care moot when he was transferred to another facility); see also Forbes v. Trigg, 976

1

See https://apps.tn.gov/foil-app/search.jsp.

2

F.2d 308, 312 (7th Cir. 1992) (dismissing as moot habeas petition because petitioner had
been released from segregation); Thompson v. Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940-41 (8th Cir. 1983)
(dismissing as moot habeas petition alleging harassment because petitioner was transferred
to another prison). The Court can afford Plaintiff no effectual injunctive relief, and the only
potential relief available to him is money damages.
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3