United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO AMEND, MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF, AND MOTION TO RECTIFY
A. Bolden United States District Judge
Lloyd George Morgan, Jr., initiated this action by filing a
civil rights complaint against twenty-one officials or
officers employed by the State of Connecticut Department of
Correction. ECF No. 1. On September 29, 2015, the Court
dismissed multiple claims in the Complaint as to all
defendants and a prison transfer claim against defendants
Semple and Lewis and concluded that the case should proceed
as to the Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference
to safety and failure to protect from harm and the First
Amendment retaliation claim as well as state law claims of
negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
See Initial Review Order, ECF No. 11.
September 29, 2015, the Court also denied in part and granted
in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. See
Ruling Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 53. On February 26, 2016,
Defendants moved for an extension of time until April 1, 2016
to file their motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 73, which
the Court granted on February 29, 2016, ECF No 74. Defendants
then filed their motion for summary judgment on April 1,
2016. ECF No. 82
the Court are several of Mr. Morgan's pending motions.
Mr. Morgan moves to amend the complaint, ECF No. 88; ECF No.
91, for injunctive relief, ECF No. 90, for acknowledgement of
his objection to a motion for extension of time filed by the
Defendants, and to rectify docket entries by the Clerk, ECF
No. 77 (objecting to Defendants' motion for extension of
time to file summary judgment motion); ECF No. 92 (moving
“to rectify” and moving to seek acknowledgment of
his objection to Defendants' motion for extension of
time). For the reasons set forth below, the motions to amend
and the motion to acknowledge/rectify are DENIED in their
entirety and the motion for injunctive relief and the
objection to Defendants' motion for extension of time are
DENIED as moot.
Motion for Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 90
motion for injunctive relief, referred to as a motion for
intentional interference in the docket, Mr. Morgan claims
that prison officials at Garner Correctional Institution
(“Garner”) are interfering with his legal mail
and requests that the Court order the officials to cease
interfering with his mail. ECF No. 90.
Mr. Morgan has now been discharged from prison, his motion
for injunctive relief is moot. “A case becomes moot
when interim relief or events have eradicated the effects of
the defendant's act or omission, and there is no
reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will
recur.” Van Wie v. Pataki, 267 F.3d 109, 113
(2d Cir. 2001); see also Martin-Trigona v. Shiff,
702 F.2d 380, 386 (2d Cir. 1983) (explaining that case or
controversy is moot when “relief sought can no longer
be given or is no longer needed”). Thus, an
inmate's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief
against correctional staff or conditions of confinement at a
particular correctional institution become moot when the
inmate is discharged or transferred to a different
correctional institution. See Salahuddin v. Goord,
467 F.3d 263, 272 (2d Cir. 2011) (“In this circuit, an
inmate's transfer from a prison facility generally moots
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against
officials of that facility.”); see also Prins v.
Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504, 506 (2d Cir. 1996) (“It is
settled in this Circuit that a transfer from a prison
facility moots an action for injunctive relief against the
transferring facility.”) (per curiam); Young v.
Coughlin, 866 F.2d 567, 568 n.1 (2d Cir. 1989)
(“Since Young is no longer incarcerated at Auburn, but
was transferred to Attica Correctional Facility, his claim
for declaratory and injunctive relief is moot.”). Moot
claims must be dismissed. See N.Y. City Employees'
Ret. Sys. v. Dole Food Co., 969 F.2d 1430, 1433 (2d Cir.
1992) (“A moot action therefore must be dismissed, even
if the case was live at the outset but later events rendered
officials have discharged Mr. Morgan from prison. He now
resides in New Haven, Connecticut. See ECF No. 102.
Thus, he cannot obtain the injunctive relief he seeks with
regards to conditions of confinement at Garner. To the extent
that Mr. Morgan seeks injunctive relief, the request is
denied as moot.
Morgan's motion for injunctive relief also includes a
request for appointment of counsel. See Motion at 1-2, ECF
No. 102. A review of the motion for leave to amend and
response to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
reflects that an attorney from the Inmates' Legal Aid
Program is assisting Mr. Morgan in litigating this case. ECF
No. 88; ECF No. 91; ECF No. 100. Accordingly, the motion is
denied to the extent that it seeks the appointment of
counsel. The motion to deter intentional interference is
therefore denied in all respects, both as to the requested
injunctive relief and as to the request for appointment of
Motion to Rectify/Seeking Acknowledgement of Objection, ECF
No. 92; Objection to Motion for Extension of Time, ECF No.
April 27, 2016, Mr. Morgan filed a motion seeking to draw the
Court's attention, ECF No. 92, to the objection that he
filed on March 15, 2016 to the Defendants' February 26,
2016 motion for extension of time, ECF No. 77. The Court had
already, on February 29, 2016, granted the defendants'
motion for extension of time until April 1, 2016 to file a
motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 74. Defendants filed
their motion for summary judgment on April 1, 2016. ECF No.
Clerk of the Court had docketed Mr. Morgan's March 15,
2016 motion objecting to the Defendants' request for an
extension of time as two separate motions: the objection to
the motion for extension of time, ECF No. 77, and a motion
for relief from judgment because the motion also contained a
separate request for appointment of counsel and allegations
that the Court was biased against him and had not been fair
in denying previous requests for appointment of counsel, ECF
No. 78. On April 21, 2016, the Court denied the motion, ECF
No. 78, seeking relief from judgment and Mr. Morgan's
request for appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 89.
objection to the motion for extension of time, ECF No. 77, is
now denied as moot. As explained above, when a motion or
claim seeks relief that “can no longer be given or is
no longer needed, ” the claim is moot. See
Martin-Trigona, 702 F.2d at 386. As Defendants have
already filed their motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 82,
the objection to the motion for extension of time to file
that motion for summary judgment is necessarily moot. To the
extent that Mr. Morgan's motion to rectify, ECF No 92,
seeks to direct the Court's attention to the objection to
the motion for extension of time, it is denied as moot.
Morgan's motion to rectify also contends that members of
the Clerk's office staff are not docketing his many
motions properly and asks the Court to rectify these alleged
errors. ECF No. 92. Mr. Morgan claims that staff members are
not reading his motions thoroughly, are biased and are
“just intentionally denying mostly any and all the
plaintiff motion possibly because the plaintiff is poorly
trained and not properly educated at law and have sloppy
handwriting.” Mot. Rectify at 2, ECF No. 92. There is
no evidence of improper docketing or bias on the part of the
Clerk's office staff. Furthermore, members of the
Clerk's office staff have not ruled on Mr. Morgan's
motions. Instead, the Court has done so.
Morgan also complains that he is confused by docket entries,
such as ECF No. 89, that reference a ruling addressing
multiple motions filed by him. When a ruling addresses
multiple motions, the docket entry reflects the disposition
of each motion. If the plaintiff in the case is an inmate, a
member of the Clerk's office staff e-mails the docket
entry, or the Notice of Electronic Filing, to the inmate at
his or her place of confinement on file with the Court under
the Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program.
See ECF No. 46. A member of the Clerk's office
staff also mails a copy of the ruling disposing of the
motions to the inmate. The docket reflects that a docket
clerk mailed a copy of the ruling addressing various motions,
ECF No. 89, to Mr. Morgan on April 25, 2016. Accordingly, Mr.