United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD P. CONABOY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hankins initiated this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while confined at the
Rockview State Correctional Institution, Bellefonte,
Pennsylvania (SCI-Rockview). The Plaintiff is no longer
incarcerated and is residing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Memorandum and Order dated January 12, 2014, this Court
partially granted a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole (Parole Board); ex-Pennsylvania Attorney
General Kathleen Kane and two Parole Board employees, Parole
Supervisor Burke and Parole Agent Norma McGinnis
(Commonwealth Defendants). See Doc. 31.
Specifically, dismissal was entered in favor of former
Attorney General Kane and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and with respect to the damage claims against the Parole
Board. However, Plaintiff's claims that he was improperly
denied parole consideration by Defendants Parole Board,
Burke, and McGinnis were allowed to proceed.
Memorandum and Order dated March 24, 2014, the Corrections
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was partially
granted. See Doc. 37. Dismissal was
granted in favor of Counselor Melissa Reed and with regards
to the allegations of conspiracy, mishandling of coal, and
denial of parole review. In addition, Plaintiff's
informal request that this matter be certified as a class
action was denied. However, the claim that the Remaining
Corrections Defendants were deliberately indifferent to water
quality related problems was allowed to proceed.
Memorandum and Order dated March 3, 2015, summary judgment
was granted in favor of the remaining Corrections Defendants.
Specifically, the following SCI-Rockview)officials:
Superintendent Marirosa Lamas; Counselor Melissa Reed; Deputy
Superintendent Jeffrey Horton; ex-Deputy Superintendent
Robert Marsh; Tim Miller; Superintendent Assistant Jeffrey
Rackovan and John/Jane Doe Maintenance Department employees.
See Doc. 73. As a result of the prior decisions of
this Court, Plaintiff's surviving claim is his contention
that he was improperly denied parole consideration by
Commonwealth Defendants Parole Board, Parole Supervisor
Burke, and Parole Agent McGinnis.
pending is a motion seeking entry of summary judgment by the
Remaining Commonwealth Defendants. See Doc. 102.
They also subsequently filed a suggestion of mootness.
See Doc. 112. Plaintiff has opposed both filings.
remaining claim contends that while incarcerated at
SCI-Rockview in May 2011 he was told by his prison counselor
that he was due to be seen by the Parole Board. See
Doc. 1, p. 4, ¶ 5. However, because of his ongoing
placement in the prison's Restricted Housing Unit (RHU),
“[i]t was made known to Plaintiff” that he was
precluded under Parole Board policy from being afforded an
interview. Id. at ¶ 6. Hankins
challenges that alleged Parole Board policy and its
implementation by the two remaining individual Defendants on
the grounds that Pennsylvania state inmates held in the RHU,
have a right to apply for parole upon the expiration of their
minimum sentence and to have that application fairly
considered. Hankins also indicates that the two remaining
individual Commonwealth Defendants impeded his ability to
submit the required parole application. Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.
Defendants have submitted a Suggestion of Mootnes which
provides that the Plaintiff has now completed service of his
maximum sentence and has been released from incarceration.
They conclude that in light of the Plaintiff's release
the remaining claims should be dismissed. Hankins
acknowledges that he has completed service of his maximum
sentence and been released from custody.
well recognized that the adjudicatory power of a federal
court depends upon "the continuing existence of
a live and acute controversy." Steffel v.
Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974) (emphasis in
original). "The rule in federal cases is that an actual
controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not
merely at the time the complaint is filed." Id.
at n.10 (citations omitted). "Past exposure to illegal
conduct is insufficient to sustain a present case or
controversy regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied by
continuing, present adverse effects." Rosenberg v.
Meese, 622 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96
(1974)); see also Gaeta v. Gerlinski, Civil No.
3:CV-02-465, slip op. at p. 2 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2002)
instance, an inmate's claim for injunctive and
declaratory relief fails to present a case or controversy
once the inmate has been transferred. Wahl v.
McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation
omitted); see also Carter v. Thompson, 808 F.Supp.
1548, 1555 (M.D. Fla. 1992).
initiated this action when he was confined at SCI-Rockview
and he sought in part injunctive relief. As previously noted,
Plaintiff contends that the Remaining Defendants refused to
provide him with a parole interview because he was being
housed in the RHU. It is undisputed that Hankins has now
completed service of his sentence and has been released and
there is no indication that Plaintiff will be returned to
state custody in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the
Complaint to the extent that it seeks ...