Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01279/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01279-2/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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed Thompson, Berger, Palosaari, Doe, Breummer,

Johnson, Kingsland, Herman, Linderman, Hatfield, Webb, Cooper, Butryn, Smith, Rios,

Kocho, Parsons, Mendoza, Sikes, Curran, Zavala, and Coleman as Defendants (Doc. #13).

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karl Louis Guillen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Gerald Thompson, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1279-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Karl Louis Guillen brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Dora Schriro, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director, and Ronolfo

Macabuhay, Lewis Complex physician (Doc. #11).1

 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s two

Motions for Preliminary Injunction (PI) (Doc. ##28-29), which the parties have briefed (Doc.

##43, 45).

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions.

I. Background

Plaintiff initiated this action in July 2008 (Doc. #1), and he submitted his First

Amended Complaint on September 8, 2008 (Doc. #11). His claims stem from his

confinement in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, Rast Unit in Buckeye, Arizona (id.

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 1 of 12
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

On July 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address notifying the Court

of his transfer to Eyman-Special Management Unit (SMU) I in Florence, Arizona (Doc. #76).

3

Allodynia is a condition in which ordinarily nonpainful stimuli evoke pain, and

hyperalgesia is extreme sensitivity to painful stimuli. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary

allodynia and hyperalgesia (27th ed. 2000).

4

Neuralgia is defined as “pain of a severe, throbbing, or stabbing character in the

course of distribution of a nerve.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary neuralgia (27th ed. 2000).

5

This claim was set forth in Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #11 at 3-3(A)).

Plaintiff’s nine other counts were dismissed for failure to state a claim (Doc. #13).

- 2 -

at 1).2 Plaintiff alleged that in April 2008, he began to suffer pain, allodynia, and

hyperalgesia (id. at 3).3

 He alleged that from May 10 to May 18, he submitted 14 Health

Needs Requests (HNRs) for treatment of his extreme pain from postherpetic neuralgia, which

Plaintiff described as “constant and unrelenting pain” and “the worst type of pain known to

mankind” (id.).4

 Plaintiff claimed that this pain interfered with his ability to sleep, eat,

exercise, and function. Plaintiff averred that when he was finally seen on May 18,

Macabuhay informed him that treatment could only be provided for up to 7 days because

there was no long-term treatment available (id. at 3-3(A)).

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were aware that he was experiencing tachycardia,

high blood pressure, and severe weight loss due to the pain (id. at 3(A)). Plaintiff further

alleged that Defendants were aware that in 2005, Plaintiff was taken to the University of

Arizona Pain Clinic for an epidural spinal injection to alleviate pain caused by a prior flareup. Plaintiff contended that Schriro restricted Macabuhay’s ability to effectively treat

Plaintiff’s condition in part by reducing the medical care contract, which cut medical staff,

and by eliminating the majority of pharmacies that provided medication. Plaintiff alleged

that both Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition (id.).5

On December 22, 2008, the Court screened the amended pleading and ordered service

on Defendants (Doc. #13). Service was executed in February 2009 (Doc. ##14-15). The

following month, Defendants submitted their Answer (Doc. #22), and the Court issued a

Scheduling Order (Doc. #23).

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 2 of 12
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

6

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff indicated that he was authorized to have

a typewriter as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Doc.

#11 at 5(C)).

- 3 -

On May 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Emergency TRO/PI (Doc. #28). He

submitted a second Motion for Emergency TRO/PI on May 17 (Doc. #29, docketed May 21,

2009). On June 9, the Court denied Plaintiff’s requests for a TRO but ordered Defendants

to file a response to the PI requests within 15 days; Plaintiff was permitted 5 days from

receipt of the response to file a reply (Doc. #37). On June 25, before a response was filed,

the Court received Plaintiff’s reply in support of his PI motions; his reply was signed and

dated June 17, 2009 (Doc. #43). Plaintiff indicated that he filed his reply early because he

does not have “legal access to reply within the Court’s 5-day time frames” (id. at 1 n. 1).

Also on June 25, Defendants filed their response opposing Plaintiff’s request for PI relief

(Doc. #45).

II. PI Motions

A. Plaintiff’s Contentions

In his first PI motion, which is hand-written and barely legible, Plaintiff states that on

May 8, 2009, he was placed in isolation without any penological reason or explanation (Doc.

#28 at 1). He alleges that officials confiscated his pain and allergy medication (id. at 1).

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ agents have retaliated against him and threatened to

interfere with his access to the courts (id. at 2). He appears to seek a Court order for

medication and legal access, including the return of his typewriter (id.).6

In his second motion for injunctive relief, which is typewritten, Plaintiff seeks an PI

to prevent Defendants or their agents from (1) retaining Plaintiff’s legal paperwork, legal

books, stamps and mailing materials, (2) continuing his isolation/segregation, (3) keeping

him from his original housing location and status, (4) harassing and intimidating him, (5)

denying him legal access, and (6) denying him medical and psychiatric treatment (Doc. #29).

He also requests that the Court set a show cause hearing on the motion (id.). 

In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that on May 7, 2009, Captain B. Wilson threatened him,

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 3 of 12
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

- 4 -

and this threat was related to his litigation in this case (id. at 1). Plaintiff submits a

supporting memorandum, in which he states that the day after Wilson’s threat, Lieutenant M.

Obrien told him that “someone high-up wants you to go to the hole” (Doc. #30 at 1).

Plaintiff explains that he was taken to the Rast Unit segregation cell, apparently for suspicion

 of gambling, which Plaintiff states is a minor violation. Plaintiff asserts that he requested

linens and his medications for neuralgia, allergies, and asthma (id.; Doc. #29 at 2). He states

that he did not receive these items until 4 days later and after he was found in his cell

twitching, red, itching and burning, in extreme pain, and in and out of coherence (Doc. #29

at 2). Plaintiff asserts that he was taken by ambulance to the Lewis Complex emergency

room on May 12, where he was given an injection for pain and allergy medication but not

his pain medication (id.).

Plaintiff alleges that on May 13, he requested his legal paperwork, his typewriter,

mailing materials, and his law books (Doc. #30 at 1). He asserts that the next day, he

received only his typewriter. Plaintiff claims that he is under threat by physical force,

administrative tactics, and false allegations of misbehavior. Plaintiff states that he is a wellbehaved inmate with an excellent work history (id.). 

Plaintiff expresses deep concern that something is wrong with him because he suffers

pain, shaking, and an odd sensation in his head (id. at 2). He states that he has not received

a medical check-up or post-emergency evaluation, nor can he get any HNRs to request

assistance or another pain shot (id.). And he alleges that he is confined in a cell 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week, and he is mentally unstable (Doc. #29 at 5). Plaintiff further states that

his phone calls to overseas agents and contact with his attorney have been cut off (Doc. #30

at 2). 

With his memorandum, Plaintiff submits copies of pharmacy receipts showing the

medications that are being withheld from him, and the copy of an inmate letter referencing

his ADA accommodation for a typewriter (id., Attach. 1-2).

B. Defendants’ Response

Defendants argue that a PI is not warranted on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff’s claim

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 4 of 12
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

7

Gabapentin is used to relieve the pain of postherpetic neuralgia, and Loratadine is an

antihistamine used to treat allergy symptoms and allergic skin disorders. See

www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginformation.html.

- 5 -

of retaliation is unrelated to the claims in the First Amended Complaint, (2) Plaintiff failed

to exhaust available administrative remedies for his retaliation claim, and (3) Plaintiff has not

met the PI standard for injunctive relief (Doc. #45).

In their response, Defendants set forth their version of the facts related to Plaintiff’s

detention. They state that on May 8, 2009, Plaintiff was placed in Rast Unit detention on a

charge of suspected gambling, which they identify as a “felony violation” (id. at 3).

Defendants assert that ADC conducted a thorough investigation into this charge including

a search of Plaintiff’s cell, which uncovered physical evidence of gambling activities;

interviews with witnesses; and an interview with Plaintiff (id.). Defendants state that

Plaintiff received notice of the disciplinary hearing and the evidence to be used against him,

and the hearing proceeded on June 2, 2009 (id.). At the hearing, Plaintiff presented evidence,

as did the Special Security Unit Officer; Plaintiff was found guilty of running a high-dollar

gambling operation (id.). Defendants explain that Plaintiff has appealed that decision and

the appeal is currently pending with the Deputy Warden (id. at 4). 

Defendants further state that on June 18, 2009, Plaintiff’s property was inventoried.

This inventory documented that Plaintiff currently possesses 3 boxes of legal documents and

supplies, a typewriter, 500 sheets of blank paper, six books and a dictionary, an asthma

inhaler, 3 bottles of allergy tablets, 1 bag of Gabapentin, and 2 boxes of Loratadine (id.).7

Lastly, Defendants assert that neither Defendant is involved in the day-to-day

operations at Plaintiff’s housing facility (id. at 4). They state that Macabuhay is a physician

without any authority over housing, and Schriro left the ADC in January 2009 (id.).

1. Motion Unrelated to Claims in Complaint

Defendants’ first argument is that because the claims raised and the relief sought in

Plaintiff’s PI motions are unrelated to those in his First Amended Complaint, an injunction

should not be granted (id. at 4-5). Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not established a

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 5 of 12
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

- 6 -

relationship between the injuries alleged in his PI motions and his claims set forth in the

pleading (id. at 5).

2. Exhaustion

Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not grieve the claims in his PI motion as

required under the ADC grievance procedure and, therefore, his claims are barred by the

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (id. at 6). Defendants proceed to

describe the four steps in the ADC grievance procedure in great detail (id. at 6-9).

Defendants state that there is a separate Inmate Disciplinary System that governs the

disciplinary process (id. at 10). This system includes the disciplinary hearing, a first-level

appeal to the Deputy Warden, and a second-level appeal to the Director (id.). Defendants

describe in detail the procedures at each of these steps (id. at 10-11). 

Defendants contend that to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants confiscated

his property in retaliation, Plaintiff filed a inmate letter about the loss of property—the initial

step in the grievance process, but he failed to submit an inmate grievance—the next step in

the process (id. at 9). Defendants maintain that because Plaintiff did not proceed past the

first step of the grievance procedures, he failed to exhaust his retaliation claim and the Court

is precluded from hearing the claim (id. at 9-10).

As to Plaintiff’s claims regarding the disciplinary procedures related to the gambling

charge, Defendants state that his appeal is still pending; thus, he has not exhausted remedies

and cannot bring this claim before the Court (id. at 11).

3. PI Standard 

Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not met the requirements for a PI

because he alleges only speculative injury (id. at 12). Defendants further contend that those

injuries alleged by Plaintiff have already been cured as demonstrated by Plaintiff’s own

admission that he received most of his property after 4 days (id. at 13). Defendants note that

Plaintiff’s copies of medication labels show that Plaintiff is receiving medical treatment (id.).

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff admits that he spoke with a nurse about his medical

needs, and that the inventory of his property reflects that he has received a supply of

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 6 of 12
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 8

In his accompanying affidavit, Plaintiff describes a “hot cell” as having two walls that

receive radiant heat (Doc. #44, Ex. 1, Pl. Aff. ¶ 14).

- 7 -

medications (id.). 

Within this injury argument, Defendants assert that Plaintiff seeks to alter the status

quo but has not met the heightened burden that must be met to warrant a mandatory

injunction (id. at 13-14). Defendants conclude that Plaintiff cannot show any real or

immediate threat of injury (id. at 14).

Defendants further argue that Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the

merits of his retaliation claim because here, the acts Plaintiff alleges constitute retaliation are

related to a legitimate penological goal; namely, detention and disciplinary proceedings in

response to a major disciplinary offense (id. at 15). 

In support of their opposition, Defendants submit a copy of Department Order (DO)

803, Inmate Disciplinary System (id., Ex. A); copies of the Detention Assignment Checklist

and Assignment to Detention forms dated May 8, 2009 (id., Ex. B); the declaration of

Richard Fisher, Disciplinary Hearing Officer at the Lewis Rast Unit (id., Ex. C, Fisher Decl.

¶ 3); copies of Plaintiff’s disciplinary appeal (id., Ex. D), copies of Plaintiff’s May 22 inmate

letter and response (id., Ex. E); a copy of the Inmate Property Inventory Log (id., Ex. F); and

a copy of DO 802, Inmate Grievance System (id., Ex. G). 

C. Plaintiff’s Reply

As stated, Plaintiff filed his reply before receipt of Defendants’ response; therefore,

the reply does not respond to Defendants’ arguments against an injunction. 

In his reply, Plaintiff reiterates his medical history and the facts supporting his motion

(Doc. #43). He reasserts that he suffers extreme pain, that his heart rate and blood pressure

are elevated, and that he fears a stroke or cardiac arrest (id. at 6). Plaintiff states that there

has still been no response to his request for mental health assistance (id. at 7). And he alleges

that he as been housed in a “hot cell,” which exacerbates his pain (id.).8

 

Plaintiff alleges that in February 2009, one of his visitors received threatening e-mails

from an unidentified ADC staff member (id. at 8). Plaintiff states that “Defendants have

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 7 of 12
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

- 8 -

harassed and threatened Plaintiff’s approved visitors with slanderous, libelous, and sexually

connotated e-mails” (id. at 12).

Plaintiff also alleges that Lt. Berger began harassing Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s

attempts to resolve the harassment problems led to a charge against him for “threatening and

intimidating” (id. at 8). Plaintiff states that he was terminated from his position as editor of

the inmate newspaper for unknown reasons in March 2009 (id. at 8-9). Plaintiff further states

that in May 2009, Captain Wilson, on behalf of Defendants, made threats to Plaintiff related

to Plaintiff’s discovery requests in this action (id. at 9). And Plaintiff alleges that later that

same month, Deputy Warden Owen refused to resolve Plaintiff’s grievances (id.). 

As to the May 8, 2009 detention incident, Plaintiff alleges that Rast Unit detention

officers told Plaintiff that Defendants directed them to withhold Plaintiff’s property—even

his medications—from May 8-12, 2009 (id.). With respect to the evidence found in

Plaintiff’s property that allegedly proves gambling, Plaintiff states that this evidence was not

found in the initial cell search; rather, it “suddenly” appeared later (id. at 10). Plaintiff

alleges that staff did not properly follow the rules for disciplinary proceedings and thereby

violated his due process rights (id.). 

Plaintiff states that he was denied his medication for 4 days, from May 8-12, 2009 (id.

at 6, 8). He also avers that he was denied his ADA accommodation for 6 days, and denied

legal files for 22 days (id. at 11). He states that he was unable to call an attorney until June

10, 2009, and that in June, he was told by an officer that Defendants want to confiscate

Plaintiff’s typewriter (id.). Also, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied Plaintiff

meaningful access to a CO III and kept his legal materials, stamps, stationary, and other

property (id. at 12). Finally, Plaintiff states that Defendants have denied contact visits for

Plaintiff’s international visitors, are going to reclassify Plaintiff to a higher custody level

based on false disciplinary violations, and have removed him from participation in programs

and services (id. at 12-13).

Plaintiff concludes by setting forth the injunctive relief he seeks. In addition to the

relief he original sought in his PI motions, Plaintiff adds the following:

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 8 of 12
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

9

Plaintiff subsequently filed a “Notice of Emergency Medical or Medical Furlough

Plan of Treatment” (Doc. #69). This treatment plan provides for Plaintiff’s parents to

transport him from ADC to the University of Arizona Pain Clinic for immediate treatment,

after which Plaintiff would reside in Cadine, Italy, where his fiancee and publisher would pay

for his care and an Italian Judge would monitor Plaintiff on behalf of ADC and the Court (id.

at 1-2).

- 9 -

• medical and security waivers as needed

• immediate release from stressors of isolation

• medical release procedures (to allow for medical care outside of ADC)9

• Plaintiff’s reinstatement in all ADC programs, services, and activities

• removal of specific (unidentified) officials from direct supervision of Plaintiff

• injunction against the use of force

• outdoor exercise

• alternative protective segregation at Rast Unit

(id. at 14). 

With his reply, Plaintiff submits his own affidavit (Doc. #44, Ex. 1), which is

supported by 22 attachments (copies of HNRs, medical records, medical articles, ADC

policies, Plaintiff’s personal Rast Detention Unit log, and grievances and disciplinary

reports) (id., Attachs. A-V); copies of grievances (id., Exs. 2-3); and a copy of Plaintiff’s

medical release form (id., Ex. 4).

III. Preliminary Injunction Legal Standard

The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent

irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v.

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). To obtain a preliminary

injunction, the movant 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. Defense

Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and

drastic remedy and “one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing,

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 9 of 12
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

- 10 -

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)). 

In attempting to establish either eligibility for an injunction or that a party is not

entitled to injunctive relief, the parties may rely on developments that postdate the pleadings

and pretrial motions. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846 (1994). 

IV. Analysis

Initially, the Court notes that it will consider only the requests for relief set out in

Plaintiff’s motions for PI (see Doc. ##28-29); it will not address the additional claims for

relief presented for the first time in Plaintiff’s reply brief. See Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales,

430 F.3d 1013, 1021 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s original request was for an order

directing Defendants to return his legal and mailing materials, to return him to his original

housing placement and status, to stop harassing and intimidating him, to stop interfering with

his legal access, and to provide him medical and psychiatric treatment (Doc. #29). 

A. PI Requests Unrelated to the First Amended Complaint

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show “a relationship between the injury

claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v.

Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (affirming denial of a PI request based on

alleged retaliatory conduct unrelated to the basis of a prisoner’s § 1983 claim). In Devose,

the Eighth Circuit explained that preliminary injunctive relief could not be granted “based

on new assertions of mistreatment that [were] entirely different from the claim raised and the

relief requested” in the complaint. Id. Thus, a court should not grant an injunction “when

the injunction in question is not of the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly

outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997).

Defendants argue that injunctive relief is not warranted because Plaintiff’s PI request

relates to claims of retaliation that are not connected to the claims in the underlying

complaint, which alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 10 of 12
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

- 11 -

failure to provide adequate medical treatment (Doc. #45 at 5). 

Most of the claims raised in Plaintiff’s PI motions are not related to Plaintiff’s original

medical care claims. Rather, he makes new assertions involving retaliation and the

confiscation of property, due process in disciplinary proceedings, and denial of access to the

courts. Moreover, these new assertions are against individuals who are not parties to this

action and, therefore, are not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. See Zenith Radio Corp. v.

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). For these reasons, injunctive relief is

improper. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for alleged conduct related to

retaliation, confiscation of property (including legal materials and mailing supplies),

disciplinary proceedings and due process, housing placement and status, harassment and

intimidation, and access to the courts, his PI motions will be denied.

B. PI Requests Related to First Amended Complaint

Those claims in Plaintiff’s motion concerning his medication and lack of medical

treatment, however, do pertain to the issues in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff claims

that from May 8-12, 2009, he was placed in isolation and denied his pain medications,

asthma inhaler, and allergy medications (Doc. #43 at 5). But in his reply, Plaintiff

confirms—repeatedly—that this denial of medications lasted for just those 4 days (id. at 6,

8-9). Plaintiff also avers that on May 12, he received medical treatment, including a pain

shot and allergy medication (id. at 6). Further, Defendants present evidence of Plaintiff’s

property inventory dated June 18, 2009, which shows that Plaintiff has in his possession

allergy medications and medicine for his postherpetic neuralgia (Doc. #45, Ex. F).

Considering this evidence, Plaintiff’s own statements, and the developments that

postdate the filing his PI motions, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 846, the Court finds that an injunction

is not warranted. In part, Plaintiff has received the relief he sought. As to his requests for

more extensive medical treatment and for mental health treatment, Plaintiff has not presented

sufficient facts to demonstrate irreparable harm absent an injunction. To meet the

“irreparable harm” requirement, Plaintiff must do more than simply allege imminent harm;

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 11 of 12
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

- 12 -

he must demonstrate it. Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674

(9th Cir. 1988). This requires Plaintiff to demonstrate by specific facts that there is a credible

threat of immediate and irreparable harm. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Mere “[s]peculative injury

does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.”

Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674-75. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions of imminent danger

and fear of health problems are insufficient to make the required showing for injunctive

relief.

In addition, since the briefing on the PI motions, Plaintiff has been transferred from

the Rast Unit in Buckeye, Arizona, to the SMU I facility in Florence, Arizona (Doc. #76).

When an inmate seeks injunctive relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his

claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. See

Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). In light of Plaintiff’s transfer to a

different facility in a different town, it is not clear whether Plaintiff is subject to the same

conditions and medical care that gave rise to his PI motions. 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s two motions for injunctive relief will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. ##28-29)

are denied. 

DATED this 13th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 91 Filed 08/14/09 Page 12 of 12