Taylor v. Cockrell , 74 F. App'x 369 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         August 26, 2003
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT             Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-21316
    Summary Calendar
    MAURICE TAYLOR,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JERRY GROOM, Chaplain Director,
    AKBAR SHABAZZ, Islamic Chaplain,
    DONALD KASPAR, Regional Chaplain,
    JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
    OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-00-CV-2809
    --------------------
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Maurice Taylor brings this appeal to challenge the district
    court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of his equal-
    rights challenge to the grooming policy of the Texas prison in
    which he was incarcerated when he first filed this suit.       He
    argues that he has raised a valid equal-protection claim, that
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 02-21316
    -2-
    the district court erred in substituting Janie Cockrell for the
    defendants originally named in his complaint, and that the
    district court should have enforced this court’s prior order that
    Cockrell bear part of the costs associated with his initial
    appeal.   He also moves this court for the appointment of counsel;
    to issue a show cause order that directs Cockrell to pay the
    appellate costs she owes him; and to reconsider our prior
    dismissal of Cockrell’s appeal, which was dismissed upon her
    motion.   Cockrell moves this court to vacate that part of the
    district court’s judgment relating to Taylor’s claim under the
    Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”).
    Several of Taylor’s former fellow inmates move this court for
    leave to intervene in the suit, to certify it as a class action,
    and to join as plaintiffs.
    Taylor has not briefed that portion of the district court’s
    judgment holding that his claim for monetary damages was barred
    by Eleventh Amendment immunity.    Accordingly, this issue is
    waived.   See Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir.
    1993).
    Taylor does, however, argue that the district court erred in
    dismissing his claim for injunctive relief because he has raised
    a valid claim that the grooming policy had a disparate impact
    upon Muslims.   This argument is unavailing.   Taylor’s recent
    release from prison moots his claims for injunctive relief.      See
    Rocky v. King, 
    900 F.2d 864
    , 867 (5th Cir. 1990).    Accordingly,
    No. 02-21316
    -3-
    Taylor’s appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his equal-
    protection claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief
    could be granted is DISMISSED AS MOOT.     Taylor’s motion for a
    show cause order is DENIED because the defendant asserts that she
    is taking reasonable steps to comply with this court’s order
    concerning appellate costs.
    “If a claim becomes moot after the entry of a district
    court’s judgment and prior to the completion of appellate review,
    we generally vacate the judgment and remand for dismissal.”
    Murphy v. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist., 
    334 F.3d 470
    , 471 (5th
    Cir. 2003).   That is the scenario presented by the instant case
    in relation to Taylor’s RLUIPA claim.     Accordingly, we GRANT
    Cockrell’s motion, VACATE the district court’s Memorandum Order
    and Injunction relating to Taylor’s RLUIPA claim, and REMAND this
    case to the district court for the sole purpose of dismissal of
    Taylor’s RLUIPA claim.   Because Taylor’s appeal is moot, all
    other outstanding motions are DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-21316

Citation Numbers: 74 F. App'x 369

Judges: Barksdale, Dennis, Emilio, Garza, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/26/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024