Henry v. Scott
This text of Henry v. Scott (Henry v. Scott) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 2, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 03-10026 Summary Calendar
WINDELL EUGENE HENRY; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
WINDELL EUGENE HENRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Director; TOM BAKER, Director; ALLEN POLANSKY,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CV-1585-G --------------------
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Windell Eugene Henry, formerly Texas prisoner # 935525,
appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights suit in which Henry alleged that
four prison law libraries were inadequate and deprived inmates of
their constitutional right of access to court. The district
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 03-10026 -2-
court dismissed the suit on the defendants’ motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1997e for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
It is unnecessary to address the exhaustion issues that
Henry asserts on appeal because Henry has stated, and the record
reflects, that he was released from custody during the pendency
of this suit. Accordingly, Henry’s conditions-of-confinement
suit, which sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, is
moot, and the appeal must be dismissed accordingly. See Dailey
v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1998); Rocky
v. King, 900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990). It is irrelevant
that Henry filed his lawsuit as a purported class action, because
he never sought class certification in the district court. See
Rocky, 900 F.2d at 869 (purported class action is moot when the
named plaintiff’s individual claim became moot before class
certification).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Henry v. Scott, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-scott-ca5-2003.