Golson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections et al
Filing
28
ORDER adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 18 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief against all defendants are dismissed without prejudice as moot. This case is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 10/25/13. (ds)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Edward Golson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:13-cv-373
Gary C. Mohr, Director,
O.D.R.C., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This is a civil rights action brought by plaintiff Edward
Golson, a state inmate, against Gary Mohr, Director of the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections; Lisa Crain, a social
worker at the Madison Correctional Institution; and Dennis McHugh,
Deputy
Warden
Institution.
of
Operations
at
the
Madison
Correctional
At the time the complaint was filed, plaintiff was
incarcerated at the Madison Correctional Institution.
Plaintiff
alleged that Crain issued an inmate conduct report against him in
retaliation for filing an informal complaint against a corrections
officer, in violation of his First Amendment rights.
He further
alleged that McHugh failed to take action concerning Crain’s
alleged retaliatory conduct, and that Mohr rendered an unfavorable
decision pertaining to the prisoner informal complaint resolution
process.
The only relief sought by plaintiff in his complaint is
injunctive relief ordering the defendants to properly implement the
prison inmate informal complaint resolution process, and ordering
his transfer to another institution.
In a report and recommendation filed on August 19, 2013, the
magistrate
judge
conducted
an
initial
screen
of
plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).
The magistrate judge
recommended that plaintiff be permitted to proceed with his claims
against Crain, and that the plaintiff’s claims against Mohr and
McHugh be dismissed pursuant to §1915(e)(2) for failure to state a
claim.
Objections to the report and recommendation were due by
October
17,
2013.
Plaintiff’s
objection
to
the
report
and
recommendation was filed on October 22, 2013, but was dated October
16, 2013.
party
Therefore, the court will consider the objection.
objects
within
the
allotted
time
to
a
report
If a
and
recommendation, the court “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations
to
which
objection
is
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b).
made.”
28
U.S.C.
Upon review, the court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff
does
not
address
the
recommendations
of
the
magistrate judge concerning his claims against Mohr and McHugh.
The magistrate judge recommended that the claim against Mohr for
allegedly rendering an unfavorable decision in the prison grievance
process be dismissed.
This court agrees with that recommendation,
as state prisoners have no constitutionally protected right to
prison grievance procedures, see Walker v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr.,
128 Fed.Appx. 441, 445 (6th Cir. 2005), nor are prison officials
obligated to respond to an inmate’s grievance in a way that
satisfies the inmate, see Overholt v. Unibase Data Entry, Inc., 221
F.3d 1335 (table), 2000 WL 799760 at *3 (6th Cir. 2000).
2
The
magistrate judge also recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s claim
against McHugh on the ground that he cannot be held liable under 42
U.S.C. §1983 for the actions of a subordinate absent allegations of
personal involvement.
Cir.
2009)(to
be
See Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484, 495 (6th
liable
under
§1983,
supervisor
must
have
encouraged or participated in specific incident of misconduct).
This court agrees with the recommendation of the magistrate judge
that the complaint fails to state a claim against Mohr and McHugh.
Plaintiff’s objection discusses his retaliation claim against
Crain, although the magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s
claim against Crain be allowed to proceed.
However, plaintiff’s
objection reveals that after the report and recommendation was
filed,
plaintiff
Institution.
was
Because
transferred
the
to
complaint
the
only
Lebanon
Correctional
requests
injunctive
relief, this raises the issue of whether plaintiff’s claims are
moot.
The court properly raises the jurisdictional issue of mootness
sua sponte.
See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971);
Berger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir.
1993).
Article III of the United States Constitution limits a
federal court’s exercise of judicial power to actual, ongoing
“Cases” or “Controversies.”
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1.
Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement subsists throughout
all stages of the litigation.
2860, 2864 (2011).
U.S. v. Juvenile Male, 131 S.Ct.
“The mootness doctrine is a critical component
of this jurisdictional limitation.
It ‘requires that there be a
live case or controversy at the time that a federal court decides
the case.’”
Green Party of Tenn. v. Hargett, 700 F.3d 816, 822
3
(6th Cir. 2012)(quoting Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987)).
Federal courts do not continue to consider an action if the
controversy which underlies the action ceases to exist prior to its
termination. Big Rivers Electric Corp. v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 523 F.2d 16, 19 (6th Cir. 1975).
seeking
injunctive
institution
of
his
relief
against
incarceration
When an inmate files suit
prison
based
upon
officials
those
at
the
officials’
wrongful conduct and that inmate is subsequently transferred or
released, courts routinely dismiss the injunctive relief claims as
moot. Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 1669–70 (2011); see also,
Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (concluding that
inmate’s claims for injunctive relief were rendered moot upon
inmate’s transfer from the prison about which he complained);
Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir.
1995) (inmate’s request for injunctive relief mooted upon transfer
from relevant prison).
This is because an inmate’s transfer ends
the alleged violations of his or her constitutional rights, which
“render[s] the court unable to grant the requested relief.”
Berger, 983 F.2d at 724; Fredette v. Hemingway, 65 Fed.Appx. 929,
931 (6th Cir. 2003).
“There is . . . an exception to the mootness doctrine for
claims
that
are
capable
of
Fredette, 65 Fed.Appx. at 931.
repetition,
yet
evade
review.”
This narrow, capable-of-repetition
exception is limited to situations in which “the challenged action
was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its
cessation or expiration” and “there was a reasonable expectation
that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same
action
again.”
Id.
(internal
quotation
4
marks
and
citations
omitted).
The
circumstances
here
do
not
fall
within
this
exception.
Applying the foregoing principles to the instant case, the
court concludes that plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims are moot.
Plaintiff has already obtained his requested transfer to another
institution.
favor
The court’s entry of equitable relief in plaintiff’s
against
Crain
and
McHugh,
employees
of
the
Madison
Correctional Institution, would have no effect on the behavior of
those defendants toward him because defendants perform their duties
at an institution where plaintiff is no longer incarcerated.
This
court has no jurisdiction to accord plaintiff prospective relief
that would have no effect or impact on those defendants.
In
addition, because there is no reasonable expectation that plaintiff
will be transferred back to Madison Correctional Institution, or
that he will be subjected to the same types of actions alleged in
his complaint at the Lebanon Correctional Institution, the capableof-repetition exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply.
The court has reviewed the report and recommendation and
plaintiff’s objection in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Rule 72(b) and concludes that plaintiff’s objection lacks merit.
The report and recommendation (Doc. 18) is adopted in part and
rejected in part. Plaintiff’s claims against McHugh for failing to
take action concerning Crain’s alleged retaliation and against Mohr
for allegedly failing to investigate or satisfactorily resolve
plaintiff’s grievance are dismissed pursuant to §1915(e)(2) for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief
against all defendants are dismissed without prejudice as moot.
This case is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
5
It is so ordered.
Date: October 25, 2013
S/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge
6
]]>
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?
