Stone v. Duffield Jail-Medical et al

Filing 16

OPINION & ORDER denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; His claims for monetary damages may go forward, provided that he files an Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies noted in the court's separate order of April 10, 2017. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 4/14/2017. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

TIMOTHY STONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DUFFIELD JAIL-MEDICAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:17CV00101
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Timothy Stone, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Timothy Stone, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this
prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 about his medical care in jail,
among other things. By separate order entered April 10, 2017, ECF No. 11, the
court has granted Stone an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to correct
certain pleading deficiencies.

At this time, however, Stone’s recent motion

seeking preliminary injunctive relief related to his safety must be dismissed as
moot.
At the time Stone filed his motion, he was incarcerated at the jail facility
operated by the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority (“SVRJA”) in
Duffield, Virginia (“the Duffield jail”). Stone alleged that on March 30, 2017, two
other inmates had verbally threatened to beat him up and put him in the hospital,

making him fear that he was in danger of being badly hurt or killed at the Duffield
jail. As relief, he sought a transfer. By Order entered April 7, 2017, ECF No. 7, I
construed Stone’s submission as a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and
directed the superintendent of the Duffield jail to respond in seven days. He has
now filed an affidavit, addressing Stone’s safety concerns. He states that after
receiving my Order on April 7, the superintendent transferred Stone to the separate
SVRJA jail facility in Haysi, Virginia. Stone has also informed the court of his
new address at the Haysi jail.
As a general rule, an inmate’s transfer from a particular facility 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). Because Stone has
been transferred, he is no longer confined at the jail facility under the defendants’
supervision and is no longer subject to the conditions that he believed were unsafe.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 7) is DENIED as moot. His claims for monetary
damages may go forward, provided that he files an Amended Complaint correcting
the deficiencies noted in the court’s separate order of April 10, 2017.

‐2‐ 

ENTER: April 14, 2017
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

‐3‐