Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02031/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02031-3/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

1 Although titled a “Motion for Reconsideration,” Plaintiff’s instant motion is, in fact,

a renewed motion for injunctive relief. See Doc. 49 at 2-3. Plaintiff’s first motion for

injunctive relief was denied after a hearing on April 26, 2010 (Doc. 36). 

2 Upon screening, all other claims and Defendants were dismissed (Doc. 7 at 5).

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 Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC) and the Hawaii

Department of Public Safety (DPS) (Doc. 6). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion

for injunctive relief (Doc. 45).1

 Defendants responded to the motion but Plaintiff did not file

a reply (Doc. 51). The Court will deny the motion as moot. 

I. Background

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

6). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety by

allowing him to be housed in a unit with rival gang members (id. at 5-8, 12-15).2

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 52 Filed 11/16/10 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

- 2 -

II. Motion for Injunctive Relief

A. Legal Standard

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and “one that should

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A.

Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, pp. 129-130 (2d ed. 1995)

(emphasis added)). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show “that he

is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008).

The moving party has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Envtl. Council of

Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 

B. Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiff’s new motion for injunctive relief alleges that he has received two letters that

specifically threaten his life but that Defendants have not taken any action to ensure his

safety (Doc. 45). In addition, Plaintiff claims 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 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 also claims that he has encountered

difficulty obtaining legal copies and making legal phone calls (id., Attachs. C-D). And

finally, Plaintiff asserts that SCC Warden Todd Thomas has continuously harassed and

threatened Plaintiff (id. at 2-3; Attachs. A-B). 

In response, Defendants submit the affidavit of Defendant Thomas, who attests that

Plaintiff was transferred to the Red Rock Correctional Center on October 13, 2010, to

complete his SHIP housing (Doc. 50, Ex. 1, Thomas Aff. ¶ 4). Thomas further states that any

threats Plaintiff may have received from other inmates were the result of his own aggressive

and inappropriate behavior (id. ¶¶ 5-8). Additionally, Defendants aver that they were unable

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 52 Filed 11/16/10 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 -

to locate any inmate letters threatening Plaintiff. Finally, Thomas attests that he has not

harassed Plaintiff (id. ¶ 11).

As stated, Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his motion.

C. Analysis

Plaintiff has been transferred to the Red Rock Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona

(Doc. 51). When a prisoner seeks injunctive relief concerning the facility where he is

incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those

conditions. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d

517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). Thus, transfer from SCC to Red Rock renders

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief moot, unless he can demonstrate some indication of an

expectation of being transferred back. See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-403

(1975); Johnson, 948 F.2d at 519. Plaintiff’s failure to reply in support of his motion for

injunctive relief precludes a finding that he has an expectation of being transferred back to

SCC. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s “Motion for

Reconsideration,” construed as a motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 45). 

(2) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (Doc. 45) is denied as moot. 

DATED this 15th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02031-RCB Document 52 Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 3