## Facts

- Robert G. Rocky, an inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief.
- Rocky alleged that inmates assigned to “field line” work were required to labor outdoors twice daily for up to four hours per period and were provided drinking water but no toilets, toilet paper, or hand-washing facilities in the fields.
- According to Rocky, the lack of sanitary facilities forced inmates to urinate and defecate in the fields (or attempt to refrain), creating health problems, including risks of disease or parasites, and violating constitutional rights (including claims framed under the Eighth Amendment and privacy principles).
- Rocky also referenced federal field-sanitation regulations (including OSHA field sanitation standards) to support his contention that Angola’s practices were unlawful.
- After Rocky filed suit, he underwent eye surgery and developed glaucoma; prison officials removed him from field work and reassigned him to indoor “light duty.”
- Rocky’s light-duty status was repeatedly renewed and ultimately became permanent; as a result, Rocky was no longer a field-line worker.
- Rocky moved for class certification on behalf of similarly situated inmates who worked in the fields, but he filed that motion only after he had already been removed from field work.
- The district court denied class certification and later granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
- Rocky appealed. Although both parties mentioned mootness in their briefs, the Fifth Circuit raised the mootness question on its own initiative.
- On appeal, Rocky argued his claim remained live because he still interacted with field workers and could be exposed to parasites through contact with those inmates or through food allegedly contaminated by field workers’ feces.

## Issues

1. Whether Rocky’s request for injunctive and declaratory relief became moot once he was permanently removed from field-line work and no longer faced the challenged field conditions.
2. Whether Rocky could appeal the denial of class certification and continue the case as a putative class representative when his individual claim was moot before the district court ruled on certification.
3. Whether Rocky’s asserted continuing risk of infection from contact with field workers or food, or the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine, kept the dispute from becoming moot.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot.
- Rocky lacked a continuing personal stake in the challenged field-sanitation conditions because he had been reassigned away from field work for medical reasons and that reassignment became permanent.
- Rocky’s theory that he still faced harm through possible exposure to parasites from field workers or allegedly contaminated food was too speculative to support prospective relief.
- The “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception did not apply because there was no reasonable expectation that Rocky would again be assigned to field-line work and subjected to the same challenged conditions.
- Because Rocky’s claim was moot before the district court ruled on class certification, he could not obtain appellate review of the denial of class certification or the merits judgment entered afterward.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts require a live Article III case or controversy at all stages; claims seeking injunctive or declaratory relief generally become moot when the plaintiff is no longer subject to the challenged practice.
- Before a class is certified, mootness is evaluated based on the named plaintiff’s own stake; if the named plaintiff’s individual claim becomes moot prior to a certification decision, the action is ordinarily moot.
- A putative class representative must have a live, personal interest at least through the court’s decision on class certification to challenge a denial of certification on appeal.
- Speculative possibilities of future injury, unsupported by a concrete likelihood of recurrence affecting the same plaintiff, do not preserve a live controversy for prospective relief.
- The “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception requires both that the challenged action is too short to be fully litigated and that the same plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of being subjected to it again.

## Conclusion

Rocky’s § 1983 challenge to Angola’s lack of toilets and related sanitation measures for field-line inmates became moot when, for medical reasons, he was permanently reassigned to indoor light duty before the class-certification decision; his asserted ongoing risk from indirect exposure was too uncertain to keep the case alive, the recurrence exception did not fit, and the court therefore dismissed his appeal—including his attempt to contest the denial of class certification and the later summary judgment.


Rocky v. King, 900 F.2d 864 (1990)