198 F.3d 245 (6th Cir. 1999), 98-5715, Hogan v. Douglas
|Citation:||198 F.3d 245|
|Party Name:||Rickey HOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne DOUGLAS; Buddy T. Sealey; Sue Hadley; Thomas Lamon, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||November 03, 1999|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Before RYAN and COLE, Circuit Judges; WILHOIT, District Judge. [*]
Rickey Hogan, a Tennessee prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), 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, Hogan sued Warden Wayne Douglas, Case Managers Buddy T. Sealey and Thomas Lamon, and Clerical Officer Sue Hadley, all employees of the Mark H. Luttrell Reception Center ("MLRC"). Hogan alleged that the defendants deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest when they transferred him to Cold Creek Correction Facility in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. He also applied for in forma pauperis status. The district court found that Hogan had not properly completed and submitted both an in forma pauperis affidavit and trust fund account statement, ordered Hogan to file these documents within thirty days, ordered the prison trust fund officer to calculate and collect an initial partial filing fee and monthly installments, and dismissed the complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (West 1999).
In his timely appeal, Hogan argues that: (1) he was entitled to in forma pauperis status; and (2) his retaliation claim is not frivolous.
Initially we note that Hogan's request for declaratory and injunctive relief is moot because of his transfer to a different facility. See Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir.1996). We also conclude that the district court correctly assessed the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(b); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 606 (6th Cir.1997).
This court reviews de novo a district court's decision to dismiss under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2). See McGore, 114 F.3d at 604. A case is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP