Court Opinion

ID: 9642529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:01:33.347515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:52:48.310754
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNESTO ZARAGOSA-SOLIS,                         No. 23-15306

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00562-JCH

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
M. GUTIERREZ, Warden; CHRISTENSEN,
Lt.; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; C.
NEWLAND, physician assistant; K.
MORAN, SIS Technician,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                John Charles Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Federal prisoner Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction in his action

alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1292(a)(1). We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction, Hunt v.

Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009), and we

dismiss this appeal as moot.

      Zaragosa-Solis’s appeal is moot because, during the pendency of this appeal,

Zaragosa-Solis amended the complaint that formed the basis of the appeal. See

Falck N. Cal. Corp. v. Scott Griffith Collaborative Sols., LLC, 25 F.4th 763, 765-

66 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that the amendment of a complaint on which an

interlocutory appeal is based moots the appeal, even if the amended complaint is

“substantively the same,” because the prior complaint becomes “a legal nullity”);

Akina v. Hawaii, 835 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir. 2016) (“An interlocutory appeal of

the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot when a court can no longer grant any

effective relief sought in the injunction request.”); ACF Indus. Inc. v. Cal. State Bd.

of Equalization, 42 F.3d 1286, 1292 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing as moot certain

claims on appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction because the claims

were dismissed before the district court while the appeal was pending).

      In light of our disposition, we do not consider Zaragosa-Solis’s contentions

regarding the merits of the appeal.

      All pending motions are denied as moot.

      DISMISSED.

                                          2                                    23-15306