Garcia-Muniz v. Musquiz C.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 28 Memorandum and Recommendations, denying as moot 6 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and 12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(bcampos, 1)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ROLANDO ANDRES GARCIA-MUNIZ, §
MUSQUIZ C., et al,
February 15, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-79
The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), Plaintiff’s Motions
for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) or Injunction (Dkt. Nos. 6, 12), the
Magistrate Judge’s September 7, 2017, Memorandum and Recommendation
(“M&R”) (Dkt. No. 28), and Plaintiff’s objections to the M&R (Dkt. No. 30).
On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed his complaint against various officers at
the Federal Correctional Institution, Three Rivers (“FCI-Three Rivers”). Dkt. No. 1.
Plaintiff primarily alleges that after he appealed one of Defendant Counselor
Musquiz’s (“Musquiz”) disciplinary incident reports, Musquiz retaliated by charging
Plaintiff with several disciplinary actions. Id. Plaintiff also alleges a larger
conspiracy between Musquiz and other FCI-Three Rivers officials to retaliate
against Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against FCI-Three Rivers
officials in the form of stopping his retaliatory acts and expunging all of the
disciplinary reports issued against Plaintiff.1
The Court sua sponte takes judicial notice that Federal Bureau of Prisons
records indicate that Plaintiff was released on October 20, 2017.2 See Inmate
Locator, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (record for
Plaintiff also seeks “criminal penalties” against Defendants for their behavior. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. This
claim is not properly brought before the Court and is dismissed.
2 The Court notes that neither party has informed the Court that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated
at FCI-Three Rivers, even though the Magistrate Judge stated in his M&R that Plaintiff was
scheduled to be released on October 22, 2017, and reminded Plaintiff to “keep this Court updated as
to his new address” should he be released from FCI-Three Rivers. Dkt. No. 28 at 4.
Plaintiff, Register Number 74469-079). Because Plaintiff is no longer housed at
FCI-Three Rivers and is no longer under the supervision of Defendants, his claims
for injunctive relief are now moot. This finding is consistent with the Court’s
November 28, 2017, dismissal of Plaintiff’s separate habeas petition, in which the
Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case
because Plaintiff was released from FCI-Three Rivers on October 20, 2017. GarciaMuniz v. Hanson, Case No. 2:17-cv-131, Dkt. Nos. 10, 11 (M&R and order of
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES AS MOOT the above-captioned case and
DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motions for TRO or Injunction (Dkt. Nos. 6, 12) and
Plaintiff’s self-styled “Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion
for Permission to Submit a Second Supplemental or Amended Pleading” (Dkt. No.
Final Judgment will be entered separately in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 58.
SIGNED this 15th day of February, 2018.
Senior United States District 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?