United States District Court, D. Maryland
THEODORE D. CHUANG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Troy Winston, a state inmate formerly confined at the
Maryland Correctional Training Center in Hagerstown, Maryland
("MCTC",, has filed a Petition for Injunctive
Relief against Warden Richard D. Dovey of MCTC. The Petition
was followed approximately two weeks later by a Complaint
against MCTC seeking damages and injunctive relief arising
from an incident when correctional officers used pepper spray
against him and denied him medical care.
Petition, Winston sought an injunction "to prohibit
further injury." Pet. Injunctive Relief at 6, ECF NO.
.. Winston alleged that while on
disciplinary segregation at MCTC, correctional officers
threatened to tamper with his food, used pepper spray against
him without warning, denied him medical attention, tampered
with personal items in his cell, denied him recreation, and
denied him the opportunity to speak with a supervisor.
the Petition could arguably be construed as a Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction, the Court directed the Warden to file
a response to the Petition. According to the Warden, on May
28, 2018, while Winstonss cell was being searched, Winston
placed a narcotic in his mouth and attempted to swallow it.
Winston refused to comply with orders from staff and, as he
was being forcibly removed from his cell, assaulted an
officer. After a disciplinary hearing, Winston was found
guilty of assault, disobeying an order, and possession of a
controlled dangerous substance. He was sentenced to 225 days
of disciplinary segregation. The Warden further asserts that
on June 11, 2018, Winston assaulted an inmate worker by
squirting a liquid through his door slot. Officers used
pepper spray in an effort to stop Winstonss further assault
on the worker. After a disciplinary hearing, Winston was
found guilty of assault and possession of a weapon and
sentenced to 250 days of disciplinary segregation. Finally,
the Warden states that on June 28, 2018, Winston was
transferred to Western Correctional Institution in
obtain a preliminary injunction, moving parties must
establish that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits,
(2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in
their favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
20 (2008); see Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649
F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). A moving party must satisfy
each requirement as articulated. Real Truth About Obama,
Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 347 (4th
Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089
(2010). Because a preliminary injunction is "an
extraordinary remedy," it "may only be awarded upon
a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such
relief." Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
Winston was transferred out of MCTC in June 2018, he cannot
show a likelihood of imminent irreparable harm from further
mistreatment by MCTC correctional personne.. Accordingly, to
the extent the Petition could be construed as a Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction, it will be denied.
because Winston is now at a different facility, his claim for
injunctive relief is now moot. Article III
of the Constitution limits the judicial power to
"actual, ongoing cases or controversies." Lewis
v. Continental Bank Corp., 494U.S. 472, 477 (1990)
(citations omitted). A case becomes moot when the issues
presented are "no longer 'live' or the parties
lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome."
City of Erie v. Pap 'sAM, 529 U.S. 277, 287
(2000) (quoting Los Angeles County. v. Davis, 440
U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). Where injunctive or declaratory relief
is requested in an inmates's complaint, it is possible
for events occurring subsequent to the filing of the
complaint to render the matter moot. See Williams v.
Grifjin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that
the transfer of a prisoner mooted his Eighth Amendment claims
for injunctive and declaratory relief); see also Slade v.
Hampton Roads Reg. Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248-49 (4th Cir.
2005) (holding that a pre-trial detainees's release
mooted his claim for injunctive relief); Magee v.
Waters, 810 F.2d 451, 452 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that
the transfer of a prisoner rendered moot his claim for
injunctive relief). Winstons's request for injunctive
relief is now moot because he is no longer in custody at
Winstonss Complaint, filed after the Petition, appears to
seek damages, it names only MCTC as a Defendan.. Ordinarily,
a prisoner may not obtain relief against a prison as an
entity and must instead name the specific individuals
responsible for alleged constitutional violations. See
Will v. Michigan Dep >t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
65711 (1989). Therefore, to the extent Winston still seeks to
pursue this case now that injunctive relief is not available,
he is directed to file an Amended Complaint identifying which
individuals referenced in the Complaint he seeks to name as
Defendants. He should also provide additional detail
identifying the specific dates and locations of incidents and
the specific individuals involved in each incident. Failure
to file an Amended Complaint by the stated deadline may
result in dismissal of the case.
it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Winstonss Petition for Injunctive Relief, ECF No.1, is
2. Winstonss Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,
ECF No.3, is GRANTED.
3. To the extent that Winston wishes to continue to pursue
this case, Winston is DIRECTED to file an Amended Complaint
within 28 days of the date of this Order.
Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of
4. The Clerk is directed to SEND to Winston a copy of this
order and a forms packet ...