Court Opinion

ID: 9366680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:01:09.877048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.593006
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO D. CRAWFORD, AKA Asia,                  No. 22-16055

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00498-JCH

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TUBB, Unknown; Assistant Warden, Federal
Correctional Complex, USA Penitentiary;
JAMES HAYDEN, Chief Psychologist,
Federal Correctional Complex, USA
Penitentiary; CATRICIA HOWARD,
Warden, Federal Correctional Complex,
USA Penitentiary; WAITE, Unknown; Dr.
Health Services at FCC-USP-Tucson; M.
MACK, E-Inmate Unit Management Staff at
the FCC-USP-Tucson; BHEULE, Unknown;
Captain of FCC-USP-Tucson,

                Defendants-Appellees.

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

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
      Antonio D. Crawford, aka Asia, appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying her motion for a preliminary injunction in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1). We dismiss the appeal as moot.

      A review of the record demonstrates that on December 21, 2022, the district

court entered a judgment of dismissal without prejudice in response to plaintiff’s

voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(a)(1)(A). Consequently, this preliminary injunction appeal is dismissed as

moot. See SEC v. Mount Vernon Mem’l Park, 664 F.2d 1358, 1361 (9th Cir. 1982)

(district court’s entry of final judgment renders pending appeal from preliminary

injunction moot).

      All pending motions are denied as moot.

      DISMISSED.

                                         2                                   22-16055