Benjamin W. Wagner v. Ann Precythe

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 1, 2022
• Docket: ED109495
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE BENJAMIN W. WAGNER, ) No. ED109495 ) Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Francois County vs. ) Cause No. 20SF-CC00011 ) ANN PRECYTHE, et al., ) Honorable Patrick L. King ) Respondents. ) Filed: March 1, 2022

OPINION

Benjamin W. Wagner (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing his

amended petition. In his two points on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in

dismissing his amended petition on the grounds that: 1) sovereign immunity barred suit against

the named State officials and employees and 2) Appellant failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to bringing suit. We dismiss for mootness.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

While in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and

incarcerated at Farmington Correctional Center, Appellant filed an amended petition for

declaratory and injunctive relief. The amended petition named various DOC officials and

employees and a nurse employed by Corizon to work at Farmington Correctional Center

(collectively, “Respondents”).

1 In his amended petition, Appellant alleged that Respondents violated his rights under the

Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate his hearing loss. Appellant sought an

injunction ordering that audio-to-FM transmitters be provided on all DOC televisions.

Respondents moved to dismiss Appellant’s amended petition on multiple grounds. The trial court

granted Respondents’ respective motions to dismiss.

This appeal follows. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, contending that

the case is moot because Appellant was released from prison during the pendency of the appeal,

in December of 2021. The motion was taken with the case.

II. Discussion

A case is moot where “an event occurs that makes a court’s decision unnecessary or

makes granting effectual relief by the court impossible[.]” Grzybinski v. Dir. of Revenue, 479

S.W.3d 742, 745 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Here,

Appellant asserted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief in his amended petition. “An

injunction and declaratory judgment are equitable remedies.” Ballard v. City of Creve Coeur,

419 S.W.3d 109, 117 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). “Claims for equitable relief become moot upon a

prisoner’s release from custody or transfer from the institution in which he suffered the

conditions of confinement which formed the basis for the equitable claims.” Inman v. Missouri

Dept. Of Corr., 139 S.W.3d 180, 185 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (quoting Cooper v. Gammon, 943

S.W.2d 699, 707 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)). As Appellant sought only declaratory and injunctive

relief, his claims became moot upon his release from the custody of the DOC.

Appellant argues that this case falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine,

providing our Court with discretionary jurisdiction to decide a moot case. See City of Manchester

v. Ryan, 180 S.W.3d 19, 22 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). Missouri courts have discretion to decide

2 moot cases if one of the following narrow exceptions applies: 1) the case becomes moot after it

has been submitted and argued or 2) the matter is of general public interest and importance, will

recur, and will otherwise evade appellate review. Id.

Appellant’s case does not fall within the first exception because this appeal became moot

before argument and submission in February of 2022. Appellant also failed to advance any

reason, nor do we perceive any, to find the issue will evade appellate review in future live

controversies. Thus, even if the issue is of public interest and importance and will recur, the

second exception does not apply.

III. Conclusion

We find this appeal is moot and no exception to the mootness doctrine applies. The

motion to dismiss is granted, and we dismiss this appeal.

_______________________________ Colleen Dolan, J.

Philip M. Hess, P. J., concurs. Angela T. Quigless, J., concurs.