Hancock v. Saffle

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 15 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LEROY AUSTIN HANCOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-5116
(N.D. Okla.)
JAMES SAFFLE; MICHAEL D. (D.Ct. No. 95-CV-66-K)
PARSONS, Deputy Director,
Oklahoma Department of Corrections,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, MCKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Leroy Austin Hancock, an inmate within the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a number of policies
and actions by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and its officials violated
his First Amendment right to freedom of religion in the prison. After hearing the
evidence, the district court denied Mr. Hancock’s request for injunctive relief and
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
dismissed the action. Mr. Hancock timely filed an appeal in this court. However,
Mr. Hancock completed his sentence, was discharged, and was released from
confinement after filing his notice of appeal. There was no period of supervision
required. Prior to oral argument before this court, the defendants moved to
dismiss this case as moot. Counsel for Mr. Hancock appeared at oral argument
and informed the panel he was unable to locate his client and thus was unable to
ascertain whether his client would agree to dismiss this case.
“This court will dismiss an appeal as moot, when pending an appeal from
the judgment of a lower court, ... an event occurs which renders it impossible ...
to grant [the appellant] any effectual relief whatever....” In re Material Witness
Warrant Nichols, 77 F.3d 1277, 1279 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and
citations omitted.) Because Mr. Hancock only requested injunctive relief and has
now been released from confinement, his appeal is moot. See Green v. Branson,
108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997) (a plaintiff/inmate’s claims for injunctive
relief were mooted when the inmate was released from prison). See also
McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding an
inmate’s claims for injunctive relief concerning the conditions of confinement
become moot when the inmate is released, notwithstanding the inmate’s parole or
supervised release status).
-2-
For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS as moot the appeal from the order
denying injunctive relief.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-3-