Calia v. GammonCalia v. Gammon
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- McMillian, Wollman, Murphy (per curiam)
In this consolidated appeal, Missouri inmates Gerald Moise and Robert Calia appeal from the district court‘s1 two grants of summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials in Moise and Calia‘s
We review de novo the district court‘s grant of summary judgment. See Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1325 (8th Cir.1995). We agree with the district court that appellants’ conditions-of-confinement claim for injunctive and declaratory relief was moot due to the inmates’ transfer to a different facility. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985). We reject appellants’ contention that their claims are “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” because they have not demonstrated there exists a “reasonable expectation” that they will again be subject to the same action, or that any such repeated exposure would be of too short a duration to permit litigation. See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982) (per curiam); McFarlin v. Newport Special Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 1208, 1211 (8th Cir.1992). Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment on appellants’ conditions-of-confinement claim. We further reject appellants’ contention that the court abused its discretion in denying them leave to amend their complaint.
We also find summary judgment was proper on Moise‘s claim that he was placed in administrative segregation without a finding of guilt. Moise did not allege that any defendant was personally involved in or actually knew of the unlawful placement. See Givens v. Jones, 900 F.2d 1229, 1233 (8th Cir.1990); McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 435 (8th Cir.1993).