Pomenta v. Corbin

W.D. Virginia

Pomenta v. Corbin

DecidedNovember 29, 2024

Docket7:24-cv-00199

StatusUnknown

This text of Pomenta v. Corbin (Pomenta v. Corbin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pomenta v. Corbin, (W.D. Va. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

AT ROANOKE, VA FILED November 29, 2024 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BY: /s/T. Taylor ROANOKE DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK RICHARD ANTHONY POMENTA, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:24cv00199 ) v. ) OPINION and ORDER ) CLAY CORBIN, et al., ) By: Robert S. Ballou Defendants. ) United States District Judge

In March 2024, Richard Anthony Pomenta, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging racial discrimination and interference with his right of access to the courts. In October 2024, Pomenta filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) and a Motion for Protective order (ECF No. 40), alleging that he was in fear of his life because of retaliatory actions allegedly committed by the defendants in this lawsuit. The court received both motions on October 7, 2024. On October 10, 2024, the court received a Notice of change of address, indicating that Pomenta had been transferred to Nottoway Correctional Center and was no longer at the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center (NRADC). The envelope had been stamped as “legal mail” by the Nottoway Correctional Center and was postmarked October 8, 2024, indicating that Pomenta was no longer at NRADC. All the defendants are employees of NRADC. The court concludes that Pomenta’s transfer to a new facility, unrelated to the defendants, moots his request for a preliminary injunction and a protective order. See Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that prisoner’s transfer rendered moot his claims for injunctive relief at the prior facility). Accordingly, Pomenta’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) and Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 40) are DENIED AS MOOT.

The Clerk shall send a copy of this opinion and order to Pomenta. Enter: November 27, 2024 //s/ Robert S. Ballou Robert S. Ballou United States District Judge

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

AT ROANOKE, VA FILED November 29, 2024 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BY: /s/T. Taylor ROANOKE DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK RICHARD ANTHONY POMENTA, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:24cv00199 ) v. ) OPINION and ORDER ) CLAY CORBIN, et al., ) By: Robert S. Ballou Defendants. ) United States District Judge

In March 2024, Richard Anthony Pomenta, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging racial discrimination and interference with his right of access to the courts. In October 2024, Pomenta filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) and a Motion for Protective order (ECF No. 40), alleging that he was in fear of his life because of retaliatory actions allegedly committed by the defendants in this lawsuit. The court received both motions on October 7, 2024. On October 10, 2024, the court received a Notice of change of address, indicating that Pomenta had been transferred to Nottoway Correctional Center and was no longer at the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center (NRADC). The envelope had been stamped as “legal mail” by the Nottoway Correctional Center and was postmarked October 8, 2024, indicating that Pomenta was no longer at NRADC. All the defendants are employees of NRADC. The court concludes that Pomenta’s transfer to a new facility, unrelated to the defendants, moots his request for a preliminary injunction and a protective order. See Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that prisoner’s transfer rendered moot his claims for injunctive relief at the prior facility). Accordingly, Pomenta’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) and Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 40) are DENIED AS MOOT.

The Clerk shall send a copy of this opinion and order to Pomenta. Enter: November 27, 2024 //s/ Robert S. Ballou Robert S. Ballou United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pomenta v. Corbin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pomenta-v-corbin-vawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack