Canada v. Gilbert et al

Filing 16

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 7/12/2016. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
KELVIN A. CANADA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. CHRISTOPHER GILBERT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:16CV00190
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Kelvin A. Canada, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Kelvin a. Canada, a state inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Canada alleges that officials at Red
Onion State Prison misused body cavity searches and strip cell conditions and
destroyed his personal property items in retaliation for a petition he wrote to
administrators about prison conditions.

By separate orders, the court has

conditionally filed the complaint, and it is currently being screened under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.

Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Motion for Preliminary

Injunction and a “Motion for Prima Facie Evidence,” asking the court to order
preservation of certain video footage related to his claims. After review of the
record, I find no grounds for interlocutory injunctive relief, but will ask the
defendants to preserve the requested video footage.

Canada contends that the visual body cavity searches that inmates in
segregation at Red Onion State Prison (“Red Onion”) must perform whenever they
leave their cells for showers or recreation are “degrading, unreasonabl[e], and
sadistic[ ]” and must be stopped. (Mot. Prel. Inj. 2, ECF No. 3.) He also wants an
order for strip cell conditions to be prohibited at Red Onion. According to Canada,
both of these practices are misused to punish, degrade, and retaliate against
inmates for no legitimate purpose.
The court’s docket reflects, however, that Canada has been transferred and is
now incarcerated at a prison facility in the state of Rhode Island. The transfer or
release of a prisoner generally renders moot any claims for injunctive or
declaratory relief relating to the former place of confinement. See Williams v.
Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (remanding for dismissal of prisoner’s
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as rendered moot by his transfer).
Because Canada is no longer subject to the conditions or policies for which he
sought injunctive relief against the defendants in this action, his motion for such
relief must be dismissed as moot. 1

1

In any event, Canada fails to demonstrate that the cavity searches and strip cell
procedures he challenges warrant the extraordinary interlocutory injunctive relief he
seeks. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (holding that
party seeking preliminary injunction must make a clear showing “that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
the public interest”).
-2-

The case will continue only as to Canada’s claims for monetary damages, as
these claims are not mooted by his transfer. Id.
A separate Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: July 12, 2016
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-3-