USCA11 Case: 21-13222 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13222
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DURELL SIMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-14380-AMC
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13222 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13222
Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Durrell Sims, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the
Secretary for the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDOC”).
Sims filed a complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Sec-
retary subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment under the
Eighth Amendment because the FDOC’s policy of handwashing
trays and utensils created unsanitary conditions and requesting in-
junctive relief requiring the installation of mechanical dishwashers.
The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor
of the Secretary, determining that Sims had failed to raise a genuine
issue of material fact as to either prong of his Eighth Amendment
claim.
On appeal, Sims argues the district court erred in granting
summary judgment because he had shown that handwashing
dishes exposed him to severe conditions of confinement and the
secretary acted with deliberate indifference to such conditions.
The Secretary subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as
moot because Sims was transferred from Martin Correctional In-
stitution, where he was housed when he filed the suit, before the
district court granted summary judgment, and mechanical dish-
washers had been installed at Martin Correctional Institution and
over sixty other Florida prisons. We carried the Secretary’s motion
to dismiss with the case.
USCA11 Case: 21-13222 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3 of 5
21-13222 Opinion of the Court 3
We review de novo whether a case is moot. Troiano v. Su-
pervisor of Elections,
382 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2004). “Article
III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to
the consideration of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Al Najjar v. Ash-
croft,
273 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting U.S. Const. art.
III, § 2). “[A] case is moot when it no longer presents a live contro-
versy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.”
Id. at 1336 (quoting Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t
of Health & Rehab. Servs.,
225 F.3d 1208, 1216–17 (11th Cir. 2000)).
“If events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an ap-
peal deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff or appellant
meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed.”
Id. “Where a case becomes moot after the district court enters
judgment but before the appellate court has issued a decision, the
appellate court must dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s
judgment, and remand with instructions to dismiss as moot.”
Thomas v. Bryant,
614 F.3d 1288, 1294 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Bekier v. Bekier,
248 F.3d 1051, 1055–56 (11th Cir. 2001)). “The
burden of establishing mootness rests with the party seeking dis-
missal.” Beta Upsilon Chi Upsilon Chapter at the Univ. of Fla. v.
Machen,
586 F.3d 908, 916 (11th Cir. 2009).
A pro se litigant cannot bring a claim on behalf of others.
See Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008) (explain-
ing that
28 U.S.C. § 1654, which permits parties to proceed pro se,
provides “a personal right that does not extend to the representa-
tion of the interests of others”). Absent class certification, a
USCA11 Case: 21-13222 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13222
prisoner’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are mooted
by his transfer from the facility where the cause of action arose,
even when there is no guarantee that he will not be returned to his
original facility. McKinnon v. Talladega County,
745 F.2d 1360,
1363 (11th Cir. 1984). “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in
itself show a pending case or controversy regarding injunctive re-
lief if unaccompanied by any continuing, present injury or real and
immediate threat of repeated injury.” Cotterall v. Paul,
755 F.2d
777, 780 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting Dudley v. Stewart,
724 F.2d 1493,
1494 (11th Cir. 1984)).
However, in Hardwick v. Brinson,
523 F.2d 798 (5th Cir.
1975) 1, the former Fifth Circuit determined that an inmate’s claims
seeking injunctive relief against the head of the state prison system
for unconstitutional censorship were not moot post-transfer be-
cause prison officials could not guarantee the inmate would not re-
turn to the prison he was transferred from.
Id. at 799–800. The
court also determined that the inmate’s claims, which he had raised
in separate suits in all three district courts in Georgia, should pro-
ceed in the Middle District because that was where he was pres-
ently incarcerated and any injunctive relief would be binding on
the defendants at the former prison where he was incarcerated
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
cuit decided prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 21-13222 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 5 of 5
21-13222 Opinion of the Court 5
because he had named the head of the state prison as a defendant
in his complaint in the Middle District.
Id. at 800–01.
We later distinguished Hardwick, however, from other
cases that involved alleged unconstitutional conditions at a specific
jail rather than the statewide system. McKinnon,
745 F.2d at 1363
(distinguishing the case from Hardwick, which involved unconsti-
tutional censorship throughout the state’s prison system, because
the plaintiff only alleged unconstitutional conditions at a jail where
he was no longer incarcerated).
Here, because Sims’s claims only applied to conditions at
Martin Correctional Institution, we grant the secretary’s motion to
dismiss the appeal as moot. Indeed, Sims was transferred from that
facility and the FDOC has now installed dishwashers at his current
facility and at Martin Correctional Institution.
DISMISSED as moot.
