Trammell v. Sawyer

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 24 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MICHAEL WAYNE TRAMMELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 00-6150
v.
(W. District of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 99-CV-1546-C)
KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER,
Director, Bureau of Prisons,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Michael Trammell, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this
mandamus action in district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Trammell
requested that the district court direct the respondent Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer, to “administer proper and sufficient medical
treatment care and maintenance.” Trammell further requested that his care be
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
administered by a certain private physician in Wichita, Kansas. The district court
dismissed the mandamus petition on the following two grounds: (1) Trammell had
not exhausted his administrative remedies; and (2) Trammell had an adequate
remedy at law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Trammell then
filed the instant appeal, challenging the district court’s dismissal of his mandamus
action.
On September 14, 2000, this court issued an order to show cause directing
the parties to address whether Trammell’s mandamus action is moot. In
particular, this court noted that it appeared from the record that Trammell had
completed his term of incarceration and was presently serving a separate term of
supervised release. This court’s order to show cause directed the parties to
address whether Trammell’s release from custody into supervised release mooted
his mandamus petition, which petition focused exclusively on the type of medical
care Trammell sought and received during his incarceration.
In response to the order to show cause, the respondent confirmed that
Trammell had been released from custody into supervised release and asserted
that Trammell’s mandamus action was moot under this court’s decision in
McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 1999). In McAlpine, the
petitioner sought mandamus to force the prison warden to provide peyote at
-2-
Native American Church ceremonies. After the case was dismissed by the district
court on the merits, but before a decision was reached by this court, the petitioner
was released from custody into supervised release. Noting the jurisdictional
implications, the McAlpine court concluded
the issue before us is whether a claim of a prison inmate seeking
prospective mandamus relief solely related to conditions of
confinement becomes mooted by that inmate’s subsequent release on
parole or supervised release. We answer that question in the
affirmative.
Id.Rather than filing a response to this court’s show cause order, Trammell
filed a Request for Continuance, requesting forty-five additional days to respond.
In support of this request, Trammell recounted the seriousness of his medical
condition and financial limitations. Nevertheless, it is readily apparent from
Trammell’s response that he is no longer incarcerated in federal prison. 1
Although this court is not unsympathetic to Trammell’s serious medical and
financial plight, it is absolutely clear that this court’s opinion in McAlpine
controls the disposition of this case. McAlpine made clear that
1
On November 15, 2000, Trammell filed a second request for a
continuance, requesting that this court defer all action in this case until January
15, 2001. That second request reasserts that Trammell’s medical condition is
serious but contains no further information relevant to the question of whether
this case is moot.
-3-
when an inmate’s claim for prospective injunctive relief regarding
conditions of confinement becomes moot due to the inmate-
plaintiff’s release from confinement, the inmate’s parole or
supervised release status does not, absent some exceptional showing,
bring that claim under the narrow “capable of repetition, yet evading
review” exception to the mootness doctrine.
Id. Because Trammell’s petition was limited to a request for mandamus relief
under § 1361, and because the requested relief related exclusively to Trammell’s
conditions of confinement in federal prison, Trammell’s release from custody into
supervised relief renders this case moot. See id. Accordingly, this court
DENIES Trammell’s requests for a continuance and REMANDS to the district
court with instructions to vacate its order and dismiss the case as moot. See id.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-