Sinkfield v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: February 25, 2021
• Docket: 7:20-cv-00149
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

MAURICE J. SINKFIELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:20CV00149 ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET ) By: James P. Jones AL., ) United States District Judge ) Defendants. )

Maurice J. Sinkfield, Pro Se Plaintiff; Justin M. Lugar, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Defendants.

The plaintiff, Maurice J. Sinkfield, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his Amended Complaint, he alleges that prison officials used excessive force and subjected him to harsh living conditions at the United States Penitentiary in Lee County, Virginia (“USP Lee”) in late July and early August of 2019. Later, Sinkfield also filed two, overlapping motions seeking interlocutory injunctive relief, based on additional, alleged events that occurred at USP Lee in May of 2020. After review of the record, I conclude that these motions must be dismissed as moot. The record indicates that Sinkfield has been transferred to another federal prison. See Notice, ECF No. 36. Therefore, he is no longer subject to the dangers he has alleged he might encounter at USP Lee in the absence of court intervention. Accordingly, his requests for interlocutory relief regarding conditions or individuals

at USP Lee are moot and must be denied as such. See Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]s a general rule, a prisoner’s transfer or release from a particular prison moots his claims for injunctive . . . relief with respect to his

incarceration there.”); Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2007) (“Once an inmate is removed from the environment in which he is subjected to the challenged policy or practice, absent a claim for damages, he no longer has a legally cognizable interest in a judicial decision on the merits of his claim.”).

For the stated reasons, it is ORDERED that Sinkfield’s motions seeking interlocutory injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 21 and 22, are DISMISSED as moot. I will separately address other pending motions.

ENTER: February 25, 2021

/s/ JAMES P. JONES United States District Judge