Ivie Harris, Jr. v. David Norwood

PER CURIAM. Ivie Harris appeals after the district court dismissed his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, concluding his claims were moot because he had requested only in-junctive relief from the sheriff and staff members at the Ouachita County Detention Center, and he was no longer incarcerated at the facility. Upon de novo review, we conclude that Harris’s claims were not moot, because his complaint also sought damages. In the “Relief’ section of the form complaint Harris used, he placed checkmarks next to both “Compensatory damages” and “Punitive damages.” 1 Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. See Midwest Farmworker Emp’t & Training, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 200 F.3d 1198, 1201 (8th Cir. 2000) (dismissal for mootness reviewed de novo). Footnotes [1] Harris requested injunctive relief in the section asking him to identify "any other relief” he was seeking.