United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
JASON J. HALL, #252 285, Plaintiff,
KIM THOMAS, COMMISSIONER, et al., Defendants.
HAROLD ALBRITTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that
the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted
(Doc. #40). The Plaintiff, Jason Hall, filed an Objection to
the Report and Recommendation.
de novo review of the objection and the file in this
case, the court finds the Objection to be without merit.
first ground the Plaintiff advances in support of his
objection to the Recommendation concerns the loss and
destruction of his legal documents in this case. Due to the
loss of these documents, he requests a continuance or stay of
summary judgment on any adjudication of the merits of his
claims. Plaintiff also maintains he can not sufficiently
object to the Recommendation without his documents due to the
court's references in the Recommendation to numerous
documents in the court file. The citations made in the
Recommendation reflect those documents filed in the court
record and there has been no showing that the Plaintiff did
not have access to that record evidence.
Plaintiff also contends the court assumed he filed a claim
for damages against defendants in their official capacity,
but he brought claims against them in their individual
capacities. The Magistrate Judge noted in the Recommendation
that it was unclear the capacity in which plaintiff brought
suit against the defendants and, therefore, addressed the
Defendants' liability in both their individual and
official capacities. (Doc. #40 at p.1 n.2, p.8).
Plaintiff objects that his request for declaratory and
injunctive relief was not made moot by his transfer from
Ventress Correctional Facility because his lengthy prison
sentence means that he could be subject to the same
conditions at other ADOC institutions as those about which he
complained in his Complaint. The allegations in the
Complaint, however, were specific to conditions existing at
Ventress. “The general rule in our circuit is that a
transfer or a release of a prisoner from prison will moot
that prisoner's claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief.” Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1267
(11th Cir. 2007). The events about which the Plaintiff
complained in his Complaint occurred at Ventress, an
institution from which he was transferred almost three years
ago. See Doc. #28. The Plaintiff's arguments as to why
this case is not moot are speculative. Because the
Plaintiff's “alleged future harm is indeterminate,
” this objection is without merit. Smith v.
Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 602 Fed.Appx. 466, 469
(11th Cir. 2015).
Magistrate Judge concluded the Plaintiff lacked standing to
bring his Complaint on behalf of other inmates at Ventress.
In his Objection, the Plaintiff states that he has standing
because the evidence proves the Defendants caused him some
actual harm, injury, or threatened injury. The Recommendation
addressed standing as it applied to the inability of the
Plaintiff to litigate the alleged violation of other
inmates' constitutional rights, not his own. This
objection, therefore, is without merit.
extent that the Plaintiff's Complaint asserted claims
based on his fear of conditions, actions, or maladies which
could have, but did not, occur during his incarceration at
Ventress, the Magistrate Judge concluded that such
contentions did not warrant constitutional scrutiny. The
Plaintiff's conclusory objection on the ground that he
made no speculation about the Defendants' conduct and
that the Defendants knew of the conditions about which he
complained long before he filed suit does not undermine this
Magistrate Judge concluded that the Plaintiff failed to show
that the Defendants Thomas or Gordy wantonly disregarded or
were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment rights regarding the conditions at Ventress. The
Plaintiff's objection to the finding in the
Recommendation that the Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity on his Eighth Amendment conditions claim are either
speculative, vague, conclusory, assert new claims not
presented in the complaint, or fail to reflect evidence of
wanton disregard or deliberate indifference by the Defendants
for the reasons explained in the Recommendation.
Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's
determination that he failed to demonstrate a violation of
his constitutional rights under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1985
and 1986. In support of his Objection, the Plaintiff asserts
in a conclusory manner that Defendant Thomas, "in
keeping with the intents of the framers of the Alabama
Constitution of 1901, to establish white supremacy in the
State, violated his Equal Protection . ., and its effects are
clearly evidenced by the number of blacks . . and poor whites
. . .in jails and prisons." Doc. #43 at 7. Even had the
Plaintiff stated a valid Equal Protection violation, the
objection is without merit for the reasons stated in the
Plaintiff's final objection appears to agree that his
claims based on a prior injunctive court order do not state a
claim, but he states that he believes the facts and evidence
in his case prove his rights were violated so that new court
orders or decrees should be issued in this case. As explained
in the Recommendation, the Plaintiff's claims premised
upon prior injunctive orders of the court do not state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The court adopts the Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and the Objection is OVERRULED.
2. The Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14, 30, and 32)
are GRANTED. A separate ...