Camp v. Putnam, et al, No. 19-50842 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 26, 2020.
Download PDF
Case: 19-50842 Document: 00515725814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 29, 2021 No. 19-50842 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Kriss R. Camp, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Kenneth M. Putnam, Warden; Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Justin Wade, Security Major; Diane Juardo, Food Service Manager; Gloria Morales, Food Service Manager; April Macias, Food Service Manager; Robert Almanza, Assistant Warden, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CV-20 Before Willett, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* On remand from a successful appeal to this court, the district court granted Kriss R. Camp, Texas prisoner # 1734943, in forma pauperis (IFP) * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-50842 Document: 00515725814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2021 No. 19-50842 status in connection with his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action challenging the conditions of his confinement, finding that Camp was in imminent danger of serious physical injury due to the spreading COVID-19 pandemic. Camp appeals that ruling, contending that the district court’s IFP order either failed to grant IFP status on the additional basis of the conditions of his confinement or failed to also address the merits of his conditions-ofconfinement claim. Because the district court has granted Camp the relief he seeks— leave to pursue his underlying § 1983 claims IFP—his appeal of that ruling is moot, and we therefore dismiss the appeal. The dismissal of Camp’s appeal similarly renders his motion for leave to appeal IFP moot, and we accordingly deny the motion. APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT; MOTION TO APPEAL IFP DENIED AS MOOT. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
