United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
WILLIAM J. HAYNES, Jr., Judge.
the Court is the motion to dismiss (Docket Entiy No. 107),
filed by Defendants Rebecca Millay, Debra Johnson, David
Gary, Kim Lake, Governor Bill Haslam, Commissioner Derrick
Schofield, Pamela Lorch, Jason Woodall, Debra Inglis, Douglas
Stephens, Rhonda Whitt, Jeff Butler, Kevin Treadwell, Julia
Setzer, Terry Harrington, Roger Rochelle and Hannah Chandler,
contending that Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief are
moot due to his prison transfer and Plaintiffs complaint
fails to allege any facts as to Defendant Lake in her
Robert Whipple, III, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against Governor Haslam and various employees of the
Tennessee Department of Correction and the Tennessee Attorney
General's Office alleging that these defendants violated
his rights under the First Amendment by denying Plaintiff
access to the courts and/or retaliating against him for
filing grievances and legal actions against various state
officials while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Turney Center
Industrial Complex (TCIX).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must
allege in his pleadings some factual basis for the claims of
unconstitutional conduct as to each Defendant. Chapman v.
City of Detroit, 808 F.2d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 1986).
"[C]onclusory allegations of unconstitutional conduct
without specific factual allegations fail to state a claim
under section 1983." Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of
Educ. 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs
complaint must identify each defendant and state what
personal role each defendant played in the alleged violations
of the plaintiffs rights and how each defendants conduct
caused that violation. Dunn v. State of Tennessee,
697 F.2d 121, 128 (6th Cir. 1982).
s complaint fails to state any personal involvement by
Defendant Lake in the alleged unconstitutional conduct. Thus,
the Court concludes that Plaintiffs complaint fails to state
a claim as to Defendant Lake and therefore, all claims
against her should be dismissed.
Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief against Defendants
Millay, Johnson, Gary, Lake, Haslam, Schofield, Lorch,
Woodall, Inglis, Stephens, Whitt, Butler, Treadwell, Setzer,
Harrington, Rochelle, and Chandler in their official
capacities, "the exercise of judicial power under
Article III of the Constitution depends on the existence of a
live case or controversy." Demis v. Sniezek,
558 F.3d 508, 512 (6th Cir. 2009). "Mootness results
when events occur during the pendency of a litigation which
render the court unable to grant the requested relief."
Speer v. City of Oregon, 847 F.3d 310, 311 (6th Cir.
1988)(quoting Can-as v. Williams. 807 F.2d 1286,
1289 (6th Cir. 1986)).
is no power the exercise of which is more delicate, which
requires greater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion,
or more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuing an
[sic] injunction..." Aluminum Workers IntT Union v.
Consol. Aluminum Corp., 696 F.2d 437, 446 (6th Cir.
1982). Any injunctive relief must be tailored. United
States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797, 816 (6th Cir.
2002). For injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show a
continuing irreparable harm. City of Los Angeles v.
Lyons. 461 U.S. 95, 103 (1982); United States,
294 F.3d at 816; Kallstrom v. City of Columbus. 136
F.3d 1055, 1067 (6th Cir. 1998). The prospect of future harm
cannot be speculative. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S.
at 102. Moreover, "[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct
does not in itself show a present case or controversy
regarding injunctive relief.. .if unaccompanied by any
continuing, present adverse effects." Id.
injunctive claims seek to compel the Defendants: (1) to keep
the library open and accessible all scheduled hours, (2) to
place Plaintiff on the "Legal Deadline List" until
he is released, (3) to reinstate Plaintiff to his prison job,
(4) to repair or replace inoperable law library computers,
and (5) to make legal photocopies within 24 hours. When his
complaint was filed, Plaintiff was housed at Tumey Center,
but has since been transferred to Bledsoe County Correctional
Complex (BCCX) on April 22, 2015. (Docket Entiy No. 108-1,
TOMIS Arrival Departure Report). Subsequent to his transfer,
Plaintiff filed a change of address with the court. (Docket
Entry No. 27).
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief challenging the conditions
at the prison where he was formerly incarcerated, but
Plaintiff has been transferred to a different facility and
thus, his injunctive relief claims are moot. Colvin v.
Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 289 (6th Cir. 2010). With this
transfer from Turney Center since April 2015, (Docket Entry
No. 108-1, TOMIS Arrival/Departure Report), any claims for
injunctive relief at Turney Center or its operations no
longer present a controversy and consequently, are now moot.
Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief against all