Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02031/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02031-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrick Kaleikoa Hiro, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jody Bradley, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2031-PHX-RCB (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Patrick Kaleikoa Hiro brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against various employees of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the Hawaii

Department of Public Safety (DPS) (Doc. 6). After service of his First Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff sought preliminary injunctive relief in the form of a transfer, arguing that his safety

was in danger at the Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC) (Doc. 23). After briefing and a

hearing, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. Plaintiff has now filed a

“Motion for Reconsideration” of the Court’s order denying the motion for injunctive relief

(Doc. 45). 

 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a renewed request for injunctive relief

and order a response.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims stem from his incarceration at the SCC in Florence, Arizona (Doc.

6). Plaintiff presented two claims for relief in his First Amended Complaint against SCC

Assistant Wardens Jody Bradley and Benjamin Griego; SCC Unit Team Manager Frank

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 49 Filed 10/18/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 Upon screening, the Court dismissed Valenzuela as a Defendant (Doc. 7 at 5). The

Court also dismissed Count II for failure to state a claim (id.). 

- 2 -

Garcia; and Hawaii DPS Administrator Shari Kimoto and Contract Monitor Scott Jinbo (id.

at 2-3). Both claims alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety

by allowing him to be housed in a unit with rival gang members (Doc. 6 at 5-8, 12-15). The

Court ordered Defendants to answer the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7).1

In his first motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff alleged that he was being threatened

by rival gang members and sought a transfer to another prison facility (Doc. 23). The Court

ordered Defendants to answer the motion and the Court subsequently held a hearing on April

26, 2010 (Docs. 28, 36). After receiving testimony from Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court

denied the motion for injunctive relief. The Court specifically found that Plaintiff had not

met his burden to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims or that he

faced immediate irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction. Winter v. Natural

Resources Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Am. Trucking Assn. v. City of Los

Angeles, 554 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

While Plaintiff titles his instant motion as a request for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s

motion is, in fact, a renewed request for injunctive relief. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144,

1149 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We construe liberally the filings and motions of a pro se inmate in a

civil suit.”). Plaintiff’s motion does not attack the Court’s prior decision, but instead presents

new facts that have occurred since the Court’s decision. Specifically, Plaintiff references two

letters—received by Plaintiff on July 1 and July 12, 2010—allegedly written by other

inmates that threaten Plaintiff’s life. Plaintiff sought a copy of one of these letters but

Plaintiff’s request for a copy was denied (Doc. 45, Attach. F). Instead, the SCC staff member

informed Plaintiff that the Court could obtain the letter by requesting Plaintiff’s inmate file

(id.). In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he has been promoted to the second level of the

Special Housing Incentive Program (SHIP), but cannot move to the SHIP II housing pod

because of the threats against his life (id. at 5). As a result, Plaintiff is forced to remain in

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 49 Filed 10/18/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

the harsh living conditions of SHIP I and has no hope of ever joining a general population

unit because of the threats against him (id.). Plaintiff avers that he has been told by Griego

and others that he will be transferred because of threats to his safety, but no transfer has been

effected (id.). 

 Plaintiff also alleges in his motion that he has encountered difficulty obtaining legal

copies and making legal phone calls (id., Attachs. C-D). And finally, Plaintiff claims that

SCC Warden Todd Thomas has continuously harassed and threatened Plaintiff (id. at 2-3;

Attachs. A-B). 

Defendants filed a notice of non-response to Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Local Rule

of Civil Procedure 7.2(g), which prohibits a response to a motion for reconsideration absent

direction from the Court (Doc. 47). But because the Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as

a new request for injunctive relief, the Court will direct that Defendants file a response to

Plaintiff’s motion. The Court requests that Defendants address the two letters cited in

Plaintiff’s motion and any current efforts by Defendants to transfer Plaintiff or otherwise

address his safety concerns.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendants must file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.

45), construed as a Motion for Injunctive Relief, within 10 days of this Order. 

(2) Plaintiff may file a reply within 7 days of Defendants’ response. 

DATED this 18th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 49 Filed 10/18/10 Page 3 of 3