Robbinette v. Lockhart et al

Filing 10

OPINION & ORDER denying 7 Motion for certification of a class; denying 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 4/3/2017. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
ERIC MICHAEL ROBBINETTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DWAYNE LOCKHART, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:17CV00053
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Eric Michael Robbinette, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Eric Michael Robbinette, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He complains that a
policy of the Southwestern Virginia Regional Jail (“SVRJ”) prohibits inmates from
getting married at the jail.

He now moves for a preliminary injunction and

certification of a class. 1 I find that both motions must be denied.
The Complaint alleges that since January, Robbinette has been asking SVRJ
officials to allow him to marry his fiancée, who is also an inmate at the jail.
Officials have refused, citing a SVRJ policy that inmates cannot get married at the
jail due to the short terms inmates serve there. On March 24, 2017, the court
received Robbinette’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction directing SVRJ officials

1

Robbinette’s other pending motions will be addressed by separate order.

to allow him to get married.

On March 29, however, the court received

Robbinette’s notice that he had been transferred to Bland Correctional Center, a
men’s prison facility operated by the Virginia Department of Corrections.
As a general rule, an inmate’s transfer or release from a particular prison
moots his claims for injunctive relief with respect to his incarceration there. See
Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286–87 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Williams v.
Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (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). Because Robbinette is
no longer confined under the authority of the defendants in this action, I must deny
as moot his pending motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief against those
defendants. His case can go forward, however, on his claim for monetary relief.
I also must deny Robbinette’s request to certify a class in this case. It is
inappropriate to certify a class where a pro se litigant or litigants seek to represent
the interests of the class. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.
1975) (“[I]t is plain error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by
counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action.”). Moreover, I cannot
find that appointment of counsel is warranted at this time. The court cannot
require an attorney to represent an indigent civil plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S.
Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). In rare cases, the
-2-

court may request that an attorney represent an indigent plaintiff when
“exceptional circumstances” exist. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir.
1975). Exceptional circumstances depend on the type and complexity of the case
and the ability of the plaintiff to present it. Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163
(4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard, 490 U.S. at 309.
Robbinette’s Complaint does not present any exceptional circumstances justifying
appointment of counsel at this time.
For the reasons stated, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motions seeking
preliminary injunctive relief and certification of a class (ECF Nos. 7 and 8) are
DENIED.

ENTER: April 3, 2017
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-3-