Derrek Larkin v. Warden Arviza

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DERREK LARKIN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00795

v. (SAPORITO, J.)

WARDEN ARVIZA,

Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Derrek Larkin proceeds on a claim for injunctive relief regarding the adequacy of his medical care at FCI Allenwood. (Docs. 30, 31). Because he has been transferred to pre-release custody, the Court must dismiss the case as moot. Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const., art. III, § 2. “A case becomes moot – and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III – when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” , 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (quotation and citation omitted). “Therefore, if developments occurring during the course of adjudication eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit, then a federal court must dismiss the case as moot.”

, 838 F.3d 297, 303 (3d Cir. 2016). Courts have “a continuing obligation to assess subject matter jurisdiction at all stages of the proceeding, even when parties

do not raise the issue.” , 49 F.4th 866, 869-70 (3d Cir. 2022). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court

must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Because Larkin has been transferred to pre-release custody (Doc. 38), his claim for injunctive relief from conditions at FCI Allenwood is

moot. , , , 213 F. App’x 132, 134 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Ibarra–Villalva’s claims are moot to the extent that he still seeks [injunctive relief] from USP–Allenwood because he has already

been transferred to another institution.”); , 323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir. 2003) (“An inmate’s transfer from the facility complained of generally moots the equitable and declaratory claims.”).

Although Larkin responded to the Court’s initial order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, (Docs. 39, 40), his response does not suggest any other plausible basis for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Larkin’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as moot pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), and the Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

Dated: June 11, 2026 JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. United States District Judge