Harris v. United States
Decision Date | 21 August 2017 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 4:16CV270 |
Parties | KEELAN HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF Nos. 34, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45]
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 34), Motion to Amend his Complaint (ECF No. 40) and Motion to Extend Time to Serve (ECF No. 45); Defendants Marilou Burns, Steven Grimm, Ralph Hanson, Glen Johnson, J.L. Norwood, Bill Story, and Harrell Watts' (the "Federal Defendants") Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41); Defendants Thomas M. Baronzzi, Anthony J. Dattillio, James A. Fredericka, and Emily Clark Weston's (the "County Defendants") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 42); and Defendants Mike DeWine and John Kasich's ("State Defendants") Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44). For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motions and grant Defendants' Motions.
Plaintiff Keelan Harris, a prisoner at FCI Elkton, sought to marry his then-fiancée, Marcela Bedoya. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3, ¶ 21. Although he properly initiated FCI Elkton's internal marriage procedures, he was informed that he could not obtain a marriage license. Id.
at PageID #: 3-4, ¶¶ 21-27. Pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.05, parties seeking a marriage license must "personally appear in the probate court within the county where either resides, or, if neither is a resident of this state, where the marriage is expected to be solemnized." Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.05. The local clerk of courts would not send an employee to the prison to issue a license and the prison declined Plaintiff's request for an escorted trip to the probate court. ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 4-5, ¶¶ 28-42. Because there was no other way for a prisoner to satisfy the personal-appearance requirement, Plaintiff was unable to obtain a marriage license.
Plaintiff sought relief through the prison's grievance process, and wrote letters to state and federal officials seeking assistance. ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 4-5, ¶¶ 28-42. When Plaintiff's grievances, and their appeals, were denied, Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various state and federal officials and employees contending that Defendants violated his constitutional right to be married. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 7-8, ¶¶ 47-57. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Id.
at PageID #: 12-13, ¶¶ 80-87.
The Court reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A). After dismissing Plaintiff's claims against the United States, United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Charles Samuel Jr., the Court permitted Plaintiff's action to proceed against all other Defendants. ECF No. 7 at PageID #: 140.
The Court appointed pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff. ECF No. 11. Because the Columbiana County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas had recently acquired videoconference technology, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendants were able to devise a program by which inmates could obtain marriage licenses via video conference. Defendant Judge Thomas M. Baronzzi, who had previously denied Plaintiff's request to appear via video conference, vacated his order and granted Plaintiff's request in light of the court's new technological acquisition. ECF No.36-1 at PageID #: 336. The Federal and County Defendants confirmed that the video conference connection was successfully tested, FCI Elkton updated its Institution Supplement on Marriage accordingly, and the updated Supplement was issued to prisoners. ECF Nos. 46, 54.
Plaintiff notified the Court that he no longer intended to wed. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff moved to amend his Complaint and extend time to serve. ECF Nos. 40, 45. The Federal Defendants and State Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. ECF Nos. 41, 44. The County Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 42.
All Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot, and, therefore, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 41-1 at PageID #: 362-64; ECF No. 42-1 at PageID #: 374-76; ECF No. 44 at PageID #: 412-14. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Motions to Dismiss and the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings regarding Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
558 U.S. 87, 92 (2009). "If an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a 'personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,' at any point during litigation, the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot." Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. at 1528 (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990)).
"The test for mootness is whether the relief sought would, if granted, make a difference to the legal interests of the parties." Bowman v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,
350 F.3d 537, 550 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting McPherson, 119 F.3d at 458). A reviewing court will determine not whether the complained-of activity has ceased, but whether it can be properly remedied by the court. Coal. for Gov't Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., 365 F.3d 435, 458 (6th Cir. 2004). "[A] case is moot only where no effective relief for the alleged violation can be given." Id.
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering Defendants to issue a marriage license to Plaintiff and his fiancée, assist Plaintiff in obtaining a marriage license and completing the marriage ceremony, as well as a declaration that Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.05(A)'s "personal appearance" requirement is unconstitutional. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 12, ¶¶ 80-82. Because Plaintiff no longer intends to wed, the Court is unable to issue any declaratory or injunctive relief that would affect Plaintiff or provide him with relief. Such an order would be purely advisory.
Although Plaintiff no longer intends to wed, he argues that his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are not moot because the intent not to marry is a direct result of Defendants' actions; Plaintiff may decide to marry in the future, and Defendants could deny his marriage orany inmate's marriage based on any perceived "security concerns" they see fit; and Plaintiff's injury is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." ECF No. 40. These arguments are either inapplicable to this case or insufficient to overcome the mootness of Plaintiff's claims.
First, that Plaintiff's decision not to marry was influenced by Defendants' actions is of no matter to the case's mootness. Because Plaintiff does not intend to marry, ordering Defendants to allow Plaintiff to marry will not afford him any relief. To the extent Plaintiff argues that the case falls within the "voluntary cessation" exception to mootness, this argument is without merit. Ordinarily, a defendant's voluntary cessation of an illegal activity is insufficient to render litigation moot. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Svcs.,
528 U.S. 167, 169 (2000) (citing City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982)). "[I]f it did, the courts would be compelled to leave '[t]he defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.'" Id. (citing City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289, n.10). In this instance, it is not Defendants' voluntary conduct, but Plaintiff's decision not to marry, that moots the case.
543 U.S. 125, 129 (2004) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). In the event that another inmate is denied the right to marry, that inmate will have to bring his own suit, unless Plaintiff can demonstrate some stake in that litigation or a basis for third-party standing. Id. at 130 ( )...
To continue reading
Request your trial