United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1118
___________________________
Joseph R. Flying Horse
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
James Hansen, Parole Agent, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Doug
Clark, Supervising Parole Agent, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities;
Krista Bast, Case Manager, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities; Seth
Hughes, Unit Coordinator, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Darin
Young, Warden, of the South Dakota State Penitentiary, Sued in his Official and
Individual Capacities; Denny Kaemingk, Secretary of Corrections, Sued in his
Official and Individual Capacities; Miranda Ward, SDSP Case Manager, Sued in
her Official and Individual Capacities; Riley DeGroot, SDSP Case Manager, Sued
in his Official and Individual Capacities; Troy Ponto, SDSP Associate Warden,
Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Darik Beiber, SDSP Unit Manager,
Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities; Val McGovern, Board Staff, Sued
in her Official and Individual Capacities
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
Stacy Cole, Board Staff, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities; Kayla
Stucky, Board Staff, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities; Ashley
McDonald, DOC Attorney, Sued in her Official and Individual Capacities
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
Pennington County, Respondeat Superior, for Pennington County State's Attorney Office
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
South Dakota Department of Corrections; South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
____________
Submitted: May 17, 2018
Filed: May 30, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, South Dakota inmate Joseph Flying Horse
appeals the district court’s1 interlocutory order denying his motion for a preliminary
injunction.
After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
conclude that this appeal is moot because the relief Flying Horse sought--an injunction
addressing his detention after the expiration of his detainer, as well as issues related
to his potential parole revocation--is now moot as his parole was revoked following
a hearing. See Bierman v. Dayton, 817 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissing
for lack of jurisdiction where appeal of order denying preliminary injunction became
moot because act sought to be enjoined had occurred).
1
The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
-2-
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot and deny Flying Horse’s pending
motion.
______________________________
-3-