Cleveland v. Martin, 590 F. App'x 726

Cleveland, an Oklahoma inmate, sued prison officials at Dick Conner and an assistant district attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over visitation denials.
Plaintiff sought monetary damages, an injunction, and a declaratory judgment; he was transferred to Jess Dunn during the appeal.
District court granted summary judgment to defendants; appeal raised mootness, Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity, and judicial notice.
Court considered whether transfer mooted injunctive/declaratory relief and whether official-capacity damages were barred by Eleventh Amendment.
Court analyzed individual-capacity claims for qualified immunity, including First Amendment familial association and procedural due process, plus an Eighth Amendment argument.
Court addressed whether judicial notice of state-court findings was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does transfer moot injunctive and declaratory relief?	Cleveland contends relief could still affect his visitation rights.	Relief would have no real-world effect after transfer.	Yes; injunctive and declaratory claims moot.
Are official-capacity monetary claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment?	Suing officials in official capacity equates to suing the state.	Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to official-capacity damages.	Yes; official-capacity monetary claims precluded.
Are the individual-capacity claims for qualified immunity valid for First Amendment and due process?	visitation restriction violated First Amendment familial association and due process.	No clearly established rights violated; qualified immunity applies.	Qualified immunity protecting defendants; no clearly established violation.
Was the district court's judicial-notice ruling harmless error?	District court improperly took judicial notice of state-court findings.	Any error would be harmless given the evidence.	Harmless error; outcome unchanged.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison regulation reasonable if related to legitimate penological interests)
Wirsching v. Colorado, 360 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2004) (four-factor Turner-based test for restriction reasonableness)
Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2003) (deferential yet not toothless prison-administration deference)
Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interests require atypical, significant hardship)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (qualified immunity requires rights to be clearly established)
Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (U.S. 2013) (Article III mootness requires real-world effectful relief)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error standard for judicial proceedings)
Doyle v. Okla. Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559 (10th Cir. 1993) (liberty interest prerequisites for due-process claims)
Fristoe v. Thompson, 144 F.3d 627 (10th Cir. 1998) (due-process claims require protected liberty interest)
Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interests and atypical significant hardship standard)