MARQUEZ v. LIVINGSTON

Civil Action No. 1:16cv286.

ERNEST V. MARQUEZ, v. BRAD LIVINGSTON.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ernest V. Marquez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Brad Livingston, Defendant, represented by Briana Marie Webb , Office of The Attorney General.

Christopher Carter, Defendant, represented by Briana Marie Webb , Office of The Attorney General.

Todd Allen, Defendant, represented by Briana Marie Webb , Office of The Attorney General.

Mark Barber, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Lynn Daniel , Attorney General of Texas.

Pinkee Patel, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Lynn Daniel , Attorney General of Texas.

Attorney General's Amicus Curiae, Amicus, represented by Jennifer Lynn Daniel , Attorney General of Texas.


ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RON CLARK, District Judge.

Plaintiff Ernest V. Marquez, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable orders of this court.

Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (docket entry 4). The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the motion be denied as moot.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion the objections are without merit. Plaintiff states he suffers from Hepatitis C and complains that he is not receiving the same treatment as other inmates. However, as stated by the Magistrate Judge, plaintiff was transferred to another prison unit after he filed his complaint and his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. His transfer made his claim for injunctive relief based on conditions at his former unit moot. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002); Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001).1

ORDER

Accordingly, plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is DENIED.

So ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff asserts his transfer to another prison unit does not make his lawsuit moot. Plaintiff is correct. As plaintiff seeks money damages, his lawsuit is not moot. However, his transfer to another unit does make his request for preliminary injunctive relief moot.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases