Phillip Parham, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Edward K. Washington, Defendant-appellee, 891 F.2d 287 (4th Cir. 1989)

Phillip Parham appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment against his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Also, Parham's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

In addition to the reasoning of the district court, we note that any injunctive and declaratory relief sought by Parham is not appropriate since he has been convicted and sentenced. He no longer suffers under the complained of conditions and therefore his complaint is moot. See Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560 (4th Cir. 1977). Moreover, although Parham's amended complaint should have been addressed by the district court as no responsive pleadings had been filed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1483, at 411-12, this omission was harmless. Judge Helms was entitled to judicial immunity, for the reasons stated by the district court, and Parham's attorney was not acting under color of state law. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. Parham v. Washington, CA-89-98-CRT-L (E.D.N.C. July 11, 1989). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.