Hill v. Zenk

Second Circuit

Hill v. Zenk

115 F. App'x 97

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 2004

DocketDocket No. 03-2821

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 115 F. App'x 97 (Hill v. Zenk) 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

Hill v. Zenk, 115 F. App'x 97 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Demetrius Hill appeals a final order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241, entered October 7, 2003. We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural history and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Because Hill brought his action for relief against the warden of a facility in which he concedes he is no longer incarcerated, his petition for relief is moot. See Prins v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504, 506 (2d Cir.1996) (noting that it is well settled in this circuit that a transfer to a new facility moots an action for injunctive relief against the prior facility).

Hill asserts that he is suffering the same deprivations at his current facility, but we decline to consider these issues as raised for the first time on appeal. See June v. Town of Westfield, 370 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.2004).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Demetrius Hill appeals a final order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241, entered October 7, 2003. We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural history and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Because Hill brought his action for relief against the warden of a facility in which he concedes he is no longer incarcerated, his petition for relief is moot. See Prins v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504, 506 (2d Cir.1996) (noting that it is well settled in this circuit that a transfer to a new facility moots an action for injunctive relief against the prior facility).

Hill asserts that he is suffering the same deprivations at his current facility, but we decline to consider these issues as raised for the first time on appeal. See June v. Town of Westfield, 370 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.2004).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. App'x 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-zenk-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack