Justin James Eugene Clark v. JOHN GALIPEAU, Warden

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 24, 2023*
Decided July 26, 2023
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2927
JUSTIN JAMES EUGENE CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN GALIPEAU, Warden
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
South Bend Division.
No. 3:22-CV-522-DRL-MGG
Damon R. Leichty,
Judge.
O R D E R
Justin Clark, an Indiana prisoner, sought an injunction to compel the prison’s
medical staff to provide him with mental health treatment. After granting some
preliminary injunctive relief, the district court entered summary judgment against Clark
because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Clark appeals, but he has
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-2927 Page 2
since transferred facilities, so his case is moot. We vacate and remand for the district
court to dismiss the suit on that ground.
Clark sued staff at Westville Correctional Facility, alleging that they were failing
to treat his mental health conditions, including suicidal ideation. He sought an
injunction mandating medication, therapy, and a transfer to either the New Castle or
Pendleton Correctional Facility for better treatment. Clark alleged that he had filed
grievances at Westville about the lack of treatment but did not receive any response.
The district court interpreted the complaint to include a motion for a preliminary
injunction and ordered the court clerk to add the proper defendant: Westville’s warden,
in his official capacity. (In the same order, the court dismissed all other claims against
all other defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Clark does not appeal those
decisions.) The court granted Clark’s motion in part, ordering the warden to have Clark
evaluated by a mental health professional and then report to the court.
After certifying his compliance with the injunction, the warden answered the
complaint and, a short time later, moved for summary judgment arguing that Clark had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The
district court ultimately agreed. It explained that, even if it accepted Clark’s assertion
(without corroborating evidence) that he filed the grievances, he had not, as required,
contacted a grievance specialist when he received no response. See generally Lockett v.
Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016, 1027 (7th Cir. 2019).
Clark appeals, contesting the district court’s conclusion that he failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. But we must first address jurisdiction: whether this case
continues to present a live controversy, as required by Article III, section 2 of the
Constitution. See E.F.L. v. Prim, 986 F.3d 959, 962–63 (7th Cir. 2021). A dispute must
remain live through all stages of the proceedings, including appeals. Chafin v. Chafin,
568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013). When a court cannot grant effective relief to the prevailing
party, the case becomes moot. Id. That is the situation here.
Public records of the Indiana Department of Correction show that Clark was
transferred to New Castle Correctional Facility sometime after filing his opening brief
on appeal. The only relief Clark sought was injunctive, and the district court correctly
designated Westville’s warden in his official capacity as the proper defendant. Because
Clark did not (and could not now) bring a damages claim, we cannot order any
effective relief pertaining to his medical care at Westville. See Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2927 Page 3
87, 92 (2009). Further, the record gives us no reason to infer that a transfer back to
Westville is likely. Therefore, Clark’s suit is moot. See Fuller v. Dillon, 236 F.3d 876, 883
(7th Cir. 2001); Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996).
We VACATE and REMAND with instructions to dismiss the claim as moot.
See Alvarez, 558 U.S. at 94; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950).

-- 3 of 3 --