United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Robert T.
Dawson, United States District Judge, referred this case to
the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 9), Motion for Sanctions and Injunction,
(ECF No. 15), Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 17), Motion to
Appeal IFP (ECF No. 26), and Motion to Correct Clerical
Error. (ECF No. 24).
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction (“ADC”) Grimes Unit. He alleges he
received an improper inmate classification while incarcerated
in the ADC Ouachita River Unit. (ECF No. 9). Specifically, he
alleges his “height, weight, medical/mental health,
length of sentence, race, violence, etc.” were not
considered. (Id. at 1). As a result, he has been
forced out of protective custody and into general population,
which placed his life in danger. (Id. at 2.).
Plaintiff believes he should remain in permanent protective
custody. (Id. at 3). He alleges that when he refused
to enter general population on the advice of his lawyer,
was charged with a disciplinary action, prevented from
achieving Class III Status, and then immediately transferred
from the Ouachita River Unit to the Cummins Unit.
(Id. at 2). Plaintiff seeks an Order keeping him in
permanent protective custody, thereby preventing
“retaliatory” discipline charges against him when
he refuses to return to general population. (Id. at
2, 3, 5).
transfer from ADC Ouachita River Unit to the ADC Cummins Unit
rendered his request for injunctive relief moot. See
Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 1999)
(holding an inmate's First Amendment claims regarding
denial of items to perform religious practices moot once he
was transferred from one state penitentiary facility to
another state penitentiary facility). See also Martin v.
Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding an
inmate's claims regarding prison conditions were moot
once the inmate was transferred). Therefore, Plaintiff's
Complaint should be dismissed as moot. See Church of
Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (A
federal court has no authority to issue opinions on moot
questions of law). Further, Plaintiff's failure to
protect and conditions of confinement claims, including those
based on his alleged improper classification, were dismissed
during PLRA preservice screening for this case. (ECF No. 11).
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9) should be
Motion for Sanctions and Injunction
this Motion, Plaintiff alleges that the ADC is transferring
him from the ADC Cummins Unit in order to moot his conditions
of confinement claims. He asks the Court to issue an order
preventing any further transfers or disciplinary actions
against him. He further threatens “a never-ending
succession of lawsuits.” (ECF No. 15). As stated above,
Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims in this case
were dismissed at PLRA preservice screening. Further, the
administration of prisons is not within the province of the
courts except in the very rare case where there is undisputed
evidence demonstrating that an inmate is subject to an
“unusually high risk of physical danger.”
Walker v. Lockhart, 713 F.2d 1378, 1383 (8th
Cir.1983). There is no such undisputed evidence here.
Plaintiff's surviving personal capacity claims against
two Ouachita River Unit Defendants for retaliation and
excessive force have been served, and any Summary Judgment
Motions for this case are due on August 12, 2019. (ECF No.
Motion for Sanctions and Injunction (ECF No.15) should be
Motion to Reconsider
the Court is Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 17) for
Reconsideration of the Court's Preservice Screening
Order. (ECF No. 11). No. response has been filed, but none is
to reconsider are not mentioned in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, so “[f]ederal courts have construed this
type of motion as arising under either Rule 59(e) (motion to
alter or amend the judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from
judgment, order, or proceeding).” Sanders v. Clemco
Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1988). Rule 59(e)
motions “serve a limited function: to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839
F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988). Rule 60(b) motions require the
moving party to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances
warranting post-judgment relief.” Arnold v.
Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001).
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 17) provides no basis for
relief under either of ...