Opinion
Case No. 3:14cv231/MCR/CJK
01-21-2016
ROBERT SMITH, Plaintiff, v. COURTNEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. 86). Plaintiff requests additional time to respond to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, suggesting his placement on "segregated status" has limited his ability to file a response to the motion. The court will grant plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff also previously filed a "Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Remedy/Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause." (Doc. 52). Plaintiff, however, was transferred from Santa Rosa Correctional Institution to Northwest Florida Reception Center after filing the motion. (Doc. 62). Plaintiff's transfer moots any request for injunctive relief. See, e.g., Spears v. Thigpen, 846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that inmate's claims regarding treatment at a facility at which inmate was no longer incarcerated were moot); Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 399 (11th Cir. 1986) (inmate's release from prison mooted claim for declaratory and injunctive relief against head of prison); Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173 (11th Cir. 1985) ("Absent class certification, an inmate's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief in a section 1983 action fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate has been transferred."); Dudley v. Stewart, 724 F.2d 1493, 1494 (11th Cir. 1984) (transfer from county jail to state prison mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against county jailers). The motion, therefore, should be denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time (doc. 86) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until February 26, 2016, to file a response to defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 82).
And it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
That plaintiff's "Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Remedy/Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause" (doc. 52) be DENIED AS MOOT.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 21st day of January, 2016.
/s/ _________
CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.