Anderson v. Rehmer

Second Circuit

Anderson v. Rehmer

696 F. App'x 536

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 2017

Docket16-2322

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 696 F. App'x 536 (Anderson v. Rehmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Rehmer, 696 F. App'x 536 (2d Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Francis Anderson is currently serving a sentence in a Connecticut prison. He has previously been confined in a Connecticut psychiatric facility and has filed numerous lawsuits. Proceeding pro se, Anderson appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ’ 1983 complaint because the district court concluded that the only relief sought, a preliminary injunction (sought in the complaint and in a series of motions), had previously been denied. An appeal from the denial of those motions was affirmed. See Anderson v. Rehmer, No. 15-3569 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review sua sponte dismissals de novo. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001).

Anderson’s transfer to a new facility prevents him from seeking either injunc-tive or declaratory relief against officials of his prior facility. See Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603, 610 (2d Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Francis Anderson is currently serving a sentence in a Connecticut prison. He has previously been confined in a Connecticut psychiatric facility and has filed numerous lawsuits. Proceeding pro se, Anderson appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. ’ 1983 complaint because the district court concluded that the only relief sought, a preliminary injunction (sought in the complaint and in a series of motions), had previously been denied. An appeal from the denial of those motions was affirmed. See Anderson v. Rehmer, No. 15-3569 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review sua sponte dismissals de novo. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001).

Anderson’s transfer to a new facility prevents him from seeking either injunc-tive or declaratory relief against officials of his prior facility. See Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603, 610 (2d Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 F. App'x 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-rehmer-ca2-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack