Mezo v. Taylor, 93-5672

Decision Date15 December 1993
Docket NumberNo. 93-5672,93-5672
PartiesNOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Michael James MEZO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold TAYLOR, Jailer; Robert Edge; Charles G. Grundy, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge, and NELSON and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Michael James Mezo, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appeals a district court order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The defendants, sued in their individual and official capacities, are Harold Taylor, the Jailer at the Daviess County Detention Center (DCDC), and Robert Edge and Charles Grundy, Deputy Jailers at DCDC. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, Mezo alleged that he was refused permission to take paperback books and a Playboy magazine to his cell at DCDC; that six large brown legal envelopes intended to be used for submitting pleadings to the court were taken away from him; and that a request for unlined white paper for court use was refused. In an affidavit filed after the commencement of suit Mezo alleged that mail addressed to him was withheld without notice and either returned to the sender or "placed in my property without my consent and without notification...."

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who determined that Mezo's allegations were insufficient to support his claims of constitutional violations. The magistrate judge recommended that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. Adopting the recommendations over Mezo's objections, the district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. We shall affirm the judgment.

Mezo is no longer incarcerated at DCDC, and there has been no showing of a reasonable expectation that he will again be a prisoner in that facility. His claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore moot. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148 (1975) (per curiam); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-3 (1975); Goar v. Civiletti, 688 F.2d 27, 29 (6th Cir.1982).

Mezo's claim for monetary damages arising from the application of DCDC's Censorship Guidelines has no merit. For one thing, the defendants have articulated a rational security reason for not permitting Mezo to keep nude photographs and ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Tripp v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., 2015-CA-001187-MR
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 2016
    ...Circuit has held that regulating materials in this context was rationally related to the objective of prison safety. See Mezo v. Taylor, 12 F.3d 213 (6th Cir. 1993) (possession of nude photographs could "encourage theft, fights, andgeneral disruption of prison order."). The regulations abou......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT