of a pattern of conduct in this kind of case that creates a continuing controversy; wherever that bottom line is, Gulf’s claim falls beneath it. Gulf neither suffers ill-effects now from Lee’s conduct nor on this record, lives under a genuine threat of repetition. We find that the dispute between Gulf and Lee lacks sufficient vitality to support a finding of a case or controversy. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of this case for want of Article III jurisdiction. AFFIRMED. 1 . Gulf filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and alleged jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. 2 . The case or controversy inquiry is thrust upon us by Gulfs choice not to request money damages for the alleged First Amendment violation. See Cruz v. Estelle, 497 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1979) (<HOLDING>). Claims for money damages ordinarily preclude
holding plaintiff had no right to recover attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because declarations requested no greater or different relief than claim for injunctive relief for constitutional violation holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot holding that the plaintiff had standing even though automatic stay had terminated and his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he also sought actual damages for violation of the automatic stay holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief