Unpublished Dispositionrobert C. Drake, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Earl David Bocook: Louis E. Puckett; William J. White;johnnie L. Baker; Clay A. Hampton, Plaintiffs, v. T.d. Taylor; Mrs. D. Brown; Mr. T. Stickrath,defendants-appellees, 817 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1987)

Before GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges; and WOODS, District Judge^* .

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth circuit, and upon examination of the record and briefs, we conclude that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

On March 22, 1985, plaintiff Robert Drake, an inmate at the Orient Correctional Institution near Columbus, Ohio, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only injunctive relief for conditions at Orient which allegedly violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff attempted to add at least five other inmates as parties to his lawsuit, which the district court permitted, but an amended complaint was never filed in which these inmates were named as parties, despite being given two chances to do so. Less than two months after plaintiff filed his complaint, he was released from Orient and never again participated in this litigation until filing his notice of appeal on July 10, 1986, in response to a district court order dismissing the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute the action.

The only party before this court on appeal is plaintiff Robert Drake. Because plaintiff only seeks injunctive relief, and because his action is not brought on behalf of other persons similarly situated, his release from Orient makes his claim moot and he no longer has standing. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Wayne County, 760 F.2d ' 689, 692 (6th Cir. 1985).

Furthermore, plaintiff was given every opportunity to litigate his claims of constitutional violations but he never took advantage of these opportunities, nor did he offer any explanation for this failure. Therefore, plaintiff's behavior indicates a clear pattern of delay and contumacious conduct making dismissal under Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, proper. Holt v. Pitts, 619 F.2d 558, 562 (6th Cir. 1980).

On these grounds, we affirm. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.