
    Michael GOFF, Appellant, v. Thomas CLEMENTS, Mike Kemna, Terry Page, William Waynes, Jean Ann Johnson, Francis Keeter, Larry Lakey, Lori Carr, Steve Marley, Becky Holt, William Wayne, Lori Lakey, Shanna Keeter, Appellees.
    No. 04-1679.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted May 9, 2005.
    Decided May 18, 2005.
    Michael Goff, Western Missouri Correctional Center, Cameron, MO, pro se.
    Alvin D. Shapiro, Overland Park, KS, for Appellant.
    David Allen Johnston, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellees.
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Michael Goff appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the conditions of his confinement. Goff was an inmate in protective custody at the Crossroads Correctional Center, a level 5 security facility. Goff brought this section 1983 action as a class action, alleging that he and all the other protective custody inmates had minimal access to outside air, the recreational facilities, and the law library, as compared to inmates not only in the general population, but even inmates who were being punished in administrative segregation. The district court denied class status, converted the state’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the petition on the merits.

In August 2004, after the district court’s decision and while this appeal was pending, Goff was transferred from Crossroads to the Western Missouri Correctional Center, a level 3 security facility. Goff is no longer subject to the conditions he complains about in his complaint. Because he sought only injunctive relief, his case is therefore moot. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985) (holding that when prisoner was moved from offending unit to another location, his claim for injunctive relief to improve prison conditions was moot because he was no longer subject to those conditions). Nor does Goff argue that the injunctive relief he seeks could address future wrongs that Goff is likely to suffer. Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 856-57 (8th Cir.1999). We decline to make that argument for him. Makaney v. Warren County, 206 F.Sd 770, 771 n. 2 (8th Cir.2000).

We dismiss the appeal as moot.  