Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02747/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02747-4/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 Ryan, Adu-Tutu, Phen, Chitwood,

Thunderwood, Kenter, and John Doe Food Service Canteen Manager as Defendants (Doc.

35).

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Steven Parker,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Adu-Tutu, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2747-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Mark Steven Parker brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Dr. Rowe, an Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Facility Health

Administrator (Doc. 26).1

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(Doc. 29), which Defendant opposes (Doc. 46).

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement at the Arizona State Prison Complex

in Florence, Arizona (Doc. 26 at 1). Plaintiff suffers from chronic gout, and he alleged that

Defendant was deliberately indifferent to this serious medical need (id. at 7, 9). In Counts

II and III of his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant denied other

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 73 Filed 02/13/12 Page 1 of 4
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

The Court did not dismiss Count I; however, because the only named Defendant in

Count I was a Doe Defendant, the Court did not direct service on the Doe Defendant (Doc.

35 at 7). 

- 2 -

physician’s requests to provide Plaintiff a medically prescribed “no meat” diet (id. at 9-11).

In Count VIII, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant repeatedly denied three physicians’ requests

to prescribe Plaintiff a vegetarian diet for his chronic gout (id. at 20). The Court dismissed

all other Counts at screening (Doc. 35).2

At the same time he filed his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Preliminary Injunction, which is supported by a separate Memorandum of Law (Docs. 29,

30). Plaintiff seeks an Order directing Defendant and any persons acting in concert with him

to provide Plaintiff a “no meat” diet (Doc. 29). Plaintiff asserts that there is a reasonable

likelihood of success on the merits of his claim because his medical need is obvious; he states

that the lack of a proper diet has caused him to endure five operations for his chronic gout

(Doc. 30 at 2-3). Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s failure to provide a proper medical diet

amounts to deliberate indifference and that indifference has caused Plaintiff to suffer

unnecessary pain (id. at 4; Doc. 29 at 2). Plaintiff further contends that there is a substantial

threat of irreparable harm given that he will continued to suffer serious physical injury

without a proper medical diet (Doc. 30 at 4-5). Plaintiff avers that in addition to the surgeries

he has had to undergo, he is now partially crippled and he may be forced to use a wheelchair

if his condition worsens (id. at 5). He submits that the threatened harm to him outweighs any

harm that an injunction may cause Defendant (id. at 7-8). Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the

public interest is served by an injunction that protects the constitutional rights “of all its

members” (id. at 8).

In its Screening Order, the Court directed Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s motion

(Doc. 35 at 13). In his response, Defendant states that since the filing of his motion,

Plaintiff’s request for a vegan diet, which contains no meat or other animal-derived

ingredients, was approved and he began receiving a vegan diet in November 2011 (Doc. 46

at 2). Defendant’s response is supported by the declaration of Chaplain Phillip Irby and a

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 73 Filed 02/13/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

copy of the response to Plaintiff’s grievance appeal seeking a vegan diet (id., Ex. A).

Because Plaintiff now receives the vegan diet, Defendant asks the Court to deny Plaintiff’s

injunctive request as moot (id. at 2).

In the alternative, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction

because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his claim prior to filing his lawsuit

and he failed to make the requisite showing for injunctive relief (id. at 4-5).

Plaintiff did not file a reply.

II. Preliminary Injunction 

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)). An

injunction may be granted only where the movant shows 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., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc.

v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The movant 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). 

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). 

B. Analysis

Defendant presents evidence showing that since filing his request for injunctive relief,

Plaintiff has received the very relief he sought in his motion (Doc. 46, Ex. A). In failing to

file a reply, Plaintiff does not dispute that he now receives the requested vegan diet.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is moot and will be denied. See Farmer,

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 73 Filed 02/13/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

511 U.S. at 846.

IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 29), and the Motion is denied.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2012.

 

Case 2:10-cv-02747-GMS Document 73 Filed 02/13/12 Page 4 of 4