Abraham Joseph Neal Rhodes, Who Now Uses the Name Abraham J. Rosenberg v. Bureau of Prisons

Fifth Circuit

Abraham Joseph Neal Rhodes, Who Now Uses the Name Abraham J. Rosenberg v. Bureau of Prisons

477 F.2d 347, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10245

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 1973

Docket72-3419

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 477 F.2d 347 (Abraham Joseph Neal Rhodes, Who Now Uses the Name Abraham J. Rosenberg v. Bureau of Prisons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abraham Joseph Neal Rhodes, Who Now Uses the Name Abraham J. Rosenberg v. Bureau of Prisons, 477 F.2d 347, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10245 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking injunctive relief and damages. We affirm, but for reasons somewhat different from those assigned below.

Appellant, a prisoner incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at Texarkana, Texas, filed his complaint in the United States District-Court for the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the Bureau of Prisons and the warden at Texarkana, in connection with their alleged interference with his mail and his right to communicate with the courts. The case was transferred on motion of respondents to the court from whence this appeal was taken. Prior to the order of transfer, the appellant had notified the court of his transfer from Texarkana to Eglin Air Force Base. After the order of transfer he filed in the transferor court an amended complaint seeking $25,000 damages from each named respondent. This amendment is a part of the record which was transmitted with the case to the transferee court. The case was then dismissed.

We agree that the claim for injunctive relief was rendered moot by appellant’s transfer out of the district. See Russell v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1973, 475 F.2d 1138. However, the fact that appellant is no longer confined in the district does not affect his standing to seek damages in connection with the alleged wrongdoings. Culp v. Martin, 5 Cir. 1973, 471 F.2d 814. Nevertheless, standing is of no avail to appellant. Although the district court erroneously dismissed the damage claim as moot, we do not deem it necessary to remand the case for further proceedings since, as a matter of law, appellant has failed to present any legal basis upon which he could recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Roots v. Callahan, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 751 [No. 72-3589, March 20, 1973]; Norton v. McShane, 5 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 855, 862; Bethea v. Reid, 3 Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 1163, 1164; Williams v. Rogers, 8 Cir. 1971, 449 F.2d 513, 517.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking injunctive relief and damages. We affirm, but for reasons somewhat different from those assigned below.

Appellant, a prisoner incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at Texarkana, Texas, filed his complaint in the United States District-Court for the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the Bureau of Prisons and the warden at Texarkana, in connection with their alleged interference with his mail and his right to communicate with the courts. The case was transferred on motion of respondents to the court from whence this appeal was taken. Prior to the order of transfer, the appellant had notified the court of his transfer from Texarkana to Eglin Air Force Base. After the order of transfer he filed in the transferor court an amended complaint seeking $25,000 damages from each named respondent. This amendment is a part of the record which was transmitted with the case to the transferee court. The case was then dismissed.

We agree that the claim for injunctive relief was rendered moot by appellant’s transfer out of the district. See Russell v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1973, 475 F.2d 1138. However, the fact that appellant is no longer confined in the district does not affect his standing to seek damages in connection with the alleged wrongdoings. Culp v. Martin, 5 Cir. 1973, 471 F.2d 814. Nevertheless, standing is of no avail to appellant. Although the district court erroneously dismissed the damage claim as moot, we do not deem it necessary to remand the case for further proceedings since, as a matter of law, appellant has failed to present any legal basis upon which he could recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Roots v. Callahan, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 751 [No. 72-3589, March 20, 1973]; Norton v. McShane, 5 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 855, 862; Bethea v. Reid, 3 Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 1163, 1164; Williams v. Rogers, 8 Cir. 1971, 449 F.2d 513, 517.

Affirmed.

922 F.2d 370 (Seventh Circuit, 1991)

Young v. Lane

922 F.2d 370 (Seventh Circuit, 1991)

Johnson v. Carlson

574 F. Supp. 827 (N.D. Texas, 1983)

Genus D. Ulmer v. George Chancellor, Sheriff, and Jones County Board of Supervisors

691 F.2d 209 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)

State Ex Rel. Miller v. Sencindiver

294 S.E.2d 90 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1982)

Weaver v. Wilcox

650 F.2d 22 (Third Circuit, 1981)

Jessie E. Wright v. El Paso County Jail, Sheriff

642 F.2d 134 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

Joyner v. McClellan.

396 F. Supp. 912 (D. Maryland, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 F.2d 347, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraham-joseph-neal-rhodes-who-now-uses-the-name-abraham-j-rosenberg-v-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack