N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

C HR ISTOPHER

B R IGHTLY, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,

v. C OR IZON HEALTH, INC .; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-16321 D.C . No. 4:21-c v-00127-JC H

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na John C ha rle s Hinde ra ke r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 7, 2022 ** Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : GR

AB E R a nd M ILLER , C i rc uit Judge s, a n d FITZW ATER , *** Distric t Judge

. 

# FIL ED
FEB 9 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d es t h i s cas e i s s u i tab l e for de c isio n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* ** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.C hristophe r B rightly , a n Ari zo n a sta te prisone r w ho is e xpe rie nc ing se ve ra l he a lth p roble m s, a

ppe a ls t he distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m oti o n f o r a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion in this 42 U.S

. C. § 1983 a c tion a lle ging viola t ions of the Eighth Am e ndm e nt. W e ha ve jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1292(a )(1) a nd a ffirm

. W e re v i e w t

he de nia l o f a pre lim ina ry injunc tion for a

buse o f disc re tion. Guzman v . She w ry , 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th C ir. 2009). 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly h e ld tha t s om e of the re lie f tha t B rightly initia lly sought in h i s pre lim ina ry injunc tion m otion wa s m oot be c a use he ha d a lre a dy

re c e ive d the re que ste d re m e die s. S e e Abdal a v. I

NS , 4 88 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ [A] c a se be c om e s m o ot whe n ‘i t no l o n ge r pre se n t[s] a c a se or c o ntrove rsy unde r Artic le III, § 2 o f the C o nstitution.’ ” (se c ond a lte ra tion i n origina l) ( quoting Spe nc e r v . K

e mna , 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998))); se e a lso Honig v . Stude nts of C al. Sc h. for the B l i n d , 4 7 1 U.S. 148, 149 (1985) (pe r c uria m ) (e xpla i ning t ha t a n a ppe a l

c ha lle nging the issua

nc e o f a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion i s m o o t i f the m ova nts ha ve
a lre a dy re c e ive d the injunc tive re lie f the y sought). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by de ny i ng the re m a inde r of B rightly ’ s m otion for a pre lim ina

ry injunc t ion. It is a

ppa re nt from the re c ord tha

t the d istric t c o urt did not re ly on a n e rrone ous le g a l pre m ise or a buse its disc re tion in

c onc luding t ha t B rightly fa i le d to de m onstra te a like lihood of suc c e ss o n the m e rits.

- 2-And be c a

use B rightly did not m e e t t his burde n, the distric t c ourt did not e rr by fa iling to a ddre ss s e pa

ra t el y each o f the fa c tors from W inte r v . N atural Re s ourc e s De fe nse C ounc il, Inc

. , 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Disne y Ente r s., Inc

. v . VidAnge l, Inc

. , 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th C i r. 2017). AFFIRM E D.

- 3-