David v. Crow et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JEROME ADRIAN DAVID, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIV-21-534-SLP
)
SCOTT CROW, et. al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Injunctive Relief From: Process
and Artificial Foods That is Causing cardiac conditions, chest pains, swelling in
hands & ankles etc.” Doc. No. 50. Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se,
initiated this action on May 21, 2021, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of
his federal rights while incarcerated 	at William S. 	Key Correctional Center
(“WKCC”) located in Fort Supply, Oklahoma.
By his current Motion, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against officials at both
WKCC, as well as the Howard McLeod Correctional Center (“HMCC”) located in
Atoka, Oklahoma. Specifically, he complains that he suffers from heart conditions
and the food served at each of these facilities is harmful to his health and not in
compliance with the heart healthy diet prescribed by various physicians. Though not
a model of clarity, Plaintiff’s Motion may also assert these facilities’ “heart healthy”
menus are not, in fact, compliant with a heart healthy diet.
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 77 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 4

2
When Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, he was incarcerated at WKCC. Plaintiff was
later transferred to HMCC. Doc. No. 15. Since that time, Plaintiff was transferred
again to Jackie Brannon Correctional Center located in McAlester, Oklahoma. Doc.
No. 52. Thus, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in either of the facilities against
which he now seeks injunctive relief. Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at
these facilities, his requests for injunctive relief are moot.
Article III of the Constitution extends the jurisdiction of federal courts only to
“live, concrete” cases or controversies. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of
Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1109 (10th Cir. 2010). “Article III’s requirement that
federal courts adjudicate only cases and controversies necessitates that courts decline
to exercise jurisdiction where the award of any requested relief would be moot—i.e.
where the controversy is no longer live and ongoing.” Cox v. Phelps Dodge Corp.,
43 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir. 1994), superseded by statute on other grounds, 42
U.S.C. § 1981a, as recognized in Walker v. UPS Inc., 240 F.3d 1268, 1278 (10th
Cir. 2001). Consequently, “[m]ootness is a threshold issue because the existence of
a 	live 	case 	or 	controversy 	is 	a 	constitutional 	prerequisite 	to 	federal 	court
jurisdiction.” Rio Grande, 601 F.3d at 1109 (quotations and citations omitted).
“Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or
controversy regarding injunctive relief[.]” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495
(1974). The Tenth Circuit has applied this principle to § 1983 actions brought by
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 77 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 4

3
inmates, and held that an inmate’s transfer from one prison to another generally
renders moot any request for injunctive relief against the employees of the original
prison concerning the conditions of confinement. See Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d
1296, 1299-1300 (10th Cir. 1997); see also, cf., Wirsching v. Colorado, 360 F.3d
1191, 1196 (10th Cir. 2004) (explaining that inmate’s release from prison moots his
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief); McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213,
1215 (10th Cir. 1999) (recognizing prisoner’s release from prison mooted his § 1983
claim for injunctive relief); Love v. Summit Cnty., 776 F.2d 908, 910 n.4 (10th Cir.
1985) (noting transfer of inmate to different prison renders his § 1983 claim for
injunctive relief moot).
The mootness doctrine is based on the reality that even if the inmate receives
injunctive relief, the defendants from the former prisons would be unable to provide
relief to the plaintiff. Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at WKCC or
HMCC, his request for injunctive relief is moot.
RECOMMENDATION
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing 	findings, 	it 	is 	recommended 	the 	“Motion 	for
Injunctive Relief From: Process and Artificial Foods That is Causing cardiac
conditions, chest pains, swelling in hands & ankles etc.” (Doc. No. 50) be DENIED
as moot. Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an objection to this Supplemental
Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by June 21 st , 2022, in
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 77 Filed 05/31/22 Page 3 of 4

4
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The failure to timely object
to this Supplemental Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of
the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991);
see, cf., Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for
the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation are deemed
waived.”).
This Supplemental Report and Recommendation does not dispose of all issues
referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
Dated this 31st day of May, 2022.
Case 5:21-cv-00534-SLP Document 77 Filed 05/31/22 Page 4 of 4