Johnson v. Leidholt et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRETT A. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MIKE LEIDHOLT, Secretary of
Corrections, in his official capacity,
DARIN YOUNG, Chief Warden, SD
Penitentiary System, in his official
capacity, BRENT FLUKE, Warden, Mike
Durfee State Prison, in his official
capacity, and TAMMY DOYLE, Unit
Manager, Barracks, in her official
capacity,
Defendants.
4:20-CV-04012-KES
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS AS MOOT
Plaintiff, Brett A. Johnson, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. This court held that defendants were entitled to
summary judgment, in their individual capacities, based on qualified
immunity. Docket 44. Johnson’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants
in their official capacities for injunctive relief are still pending. Id. at 13.
Defendants now move to dismiss the sole remaining claim for injunctive relief
(the installation of air conditioning units in the Barracks Building at the Mike
Durfee State Prison (MDSP)) as moot because Johnson has been transferred to
another facility. Docket 69. Johnson opposes the motion and contends that
Case 4:20-cv-04012-KES Document 76 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
because he could be returned to MDSP at any time, his claim is not moot.
Docket 71 at 2.
When Johnson filed his complaint, he was living at the Barracks at
MDSP in Springfield, South Dakota. Docket 1 at 4. He alleged that “inadequate
ventilation and lack of air conditioning combined with the humidity from the
showers . . . led to dangerous heat indexes and unsafe living conditions.” Id.
Johnson notified the court by letter that his address changed as of July 2,
2021, to the Rapid City Community Work Center in Rapid City, South Dakota.
Docket 66 at 1. No subsequent changes of address have been filed with the
court.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the transfer of an
inmate from one facility to another facility renders an inmate’s claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief moot. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337
(8th Cir. 1985). A claim is moot even with the transfer is to another prison
facility within the same state. See Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th
Cir. 1999) (Section 1983 claim moot after inmate transferred from one prison to
another within the same state a few weeks prior to trial). Because Johnson has
been transferred from MDSP in Springfield to the Rapid City Community Work
Center in Rapid City, his case is now rendered moot.
Johnson contends that an exception to the mootness doctrine applies
because his case falls within the “capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review”
exception to the mootness doctrine. See Docket 71 at 2. For this doctrine to
apply, the following two circumstances must be present: “(1) the challenged
Case 4:20-cv-04012-KES Document 76 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or
expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining
party will be subject to the same action again.” Smith, 190 F.3d at 855. But
there is no indication in the record that Johnson is likely to be sent back to
MDSP. He has been at the Rapid City Community Work Center for over 7
months. While this court might entertain jurisdiction over Johnson’s claim if
there was evidence of efforts on the part of defendants to evade the jurisdiction
of the court by transferring prisoners, the record does not support such a
finding in this case.
Thus, it is ORDERED:
1. That defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot (Docket 69) is granted.
2. That Johnson’s motion for a stay of discovery (Docket 75) is granted
because the action has been dismissed.
Dated February 23, 2022.
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:20-cv-04012-KES Document 76 Filed 02/23/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>