FLYING HORSE v. South Dakota Department of Corrections; South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles Defendants (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Joseph R. FLYING HORSE Plaintiff-Appellant v. James HANSEN, Parole Agent, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Doug Clark, Supervising Parole Agent, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Krista Bast, Case Manager, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities; Seth Hughes, Unit Coordinator, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Darin Young, Warden, of the South Dakota State Penitentiary, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Denny Kaemingk, Secretary of Corrections, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Miranda Ward, SDSP Case Manager, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities; Riley DeGroot, SDSP Case Manager, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Troy Ponto, SDSP Associate Warden, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Darik Beiber, SDSP Unit Manager, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Val McGovern, Board Staff, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities Defendants-Appellees Stacy Cole, Board Staff, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities; Kayla Stucky, Board Staff, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities; Ashley McDonald, DOC Attorney, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities Defendants Pennington County, Respondeat Superior, for Pennington County State's Attorney Office Defendant-Appellee South Dakota Department of Corrections; South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles Defendants

No. 18-1118

Decided: May 30, 2018

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

Joseph R. Flying Horse, Pro Se Jeffery J. Tronvold, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Pierre, SD, for Defendants Rebecca L. Mann, Gunderson & Palmer, Rapid City, SD, for Defendant-Appellee

[Unpublished]

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, South Dakota inmate Joseph Flying Horse appeals the district court's ¹ interlocutory order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction.

After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that this appeal is moot because the relief Flying Horse sought—an injunction addressing his detention after the expiration of his detainer, as well as issues related to his potential parole revocation—is now moot as his parole was revoked following a hearing. See Bierman v. Dayton, 817 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction where appeal of order denying preliminary injunction became moot because act sought to be enjoined had occurred).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot and deny Flying Horse's pending motion.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law