Nelson 051089 v. Thomas ( 2023 )

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Steven O. Nelson, No. CV-23-00745-PHX-MTL (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Siji Thomas, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Steven O. Nelson, who is currently confined in the Arizona State Prison 16 Complex-Eyman, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s May 1, 2023 Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction 18 and Emergency Medical Treatment (Doc. 2) and June 1, 2023 Motion for Emergency 19 Injunction (Doc. 24). Defendants Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, Arizona Department of 20 Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADC) Director Ryan Thornell, NaphCare 21 Incorporated, Doctor Ronald Stewart, and Nurse Practitioners Karanja Adams and Siji 22 Thomas oppose Plaintiff’s Motions. (Docs. 26, 37.) On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 23 Reply to Defendants’ Response to the May 1, 2023 Motion. (Doc. Doc. 30.) On July 13, 24 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice to Proceed (Doc. 44), which the Court construed as a Reply 25 to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s June 1, 2023 Motion. (Doc. 46.) In the Reply, 26 Plaintiff concedes his requests for injunctive relief are moot. (Doc. 44.) 27 The Court will deny the Motions. 28 . . . . 1 I. Background 2 The Complaint asserts claims regarding Plaintiff’s medical care for extreme 3 dermatitis on both legs, which caused redness, swelling, bleeding, and open wounds; a 4 ruptured disc in his back; and injuries to his feet. (Doc. 1.) On screening the Complaint 5 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated medical care claims 6 against Defendants Thomas, Adams, Stewart, and NaphCare in Counts One, Two, Three, 7 and Four, respectively, and directed them to answer the claims. (Doc. 6.) The Court 8 determined that Plaintiff stated official-capacity claims against Defendants Thornell and 9 Hobbs in Counts Five and Six, respectively, and directed them to answer the claims. (Id.) 10 II. Discussion 11 In the May 1, 2023 Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to 12 immediately schedule Plaintiff for a consultation at the wound center in Phoenix, to order 13 an MRI for a ruptured disc in Plaintiff’s back, and to order Defendants to provide Plaintiff 14 with new boots and medical tennis shoes. (Doc. 2.) In his Reply to Defendants’ Response 15 to the May 1 Motion, Plaintiff states that he received medical tennis shoes, but Nurse 16 Practitioner Adams refused to sign a special needs order (SNO) allowing Plaintiff to wear 17 his medical tennis shoes to an offsite medical appointment. (Doc. 30 at 7.) Plaintiff also 18 states he has not undergone an MRI since January 6, 2020. (Id.) However, the medical 19 records Defendants submitted with their Response show that Plaintiff underwent an MRI 20 on May 1, 2023. (Doc. 26-3 at 6.) 21 In his June 1, 2023 Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to require Defendants to assign 22 him to a top bunk in a unit that is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act 23 (ADC). (Doc. 24.) In his Reply to Defendants’ Response, Plaintiff states he has been 24 moved to an ADA housing unit, he has an ADA bed and shower SNO, has to walk only a 25 short distance to the medical unit, and is fed in-house, which has “reduced a great deal of 26 substantial pain and suffering.” (Doc. 44 at 2.) Plaintiff also states that he now sees Dr. 27 Leeds, who is treating Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, including prescriptions for pain 28 medication, footwear, and examinations, including a specialist consultation. (Id. at 3.) 1 Plaintiff concedes he is now “being treated adequately and housed in [an] appropriate living 2 area,” and his requests for injunctive relief in both Motions are “moot at this time.” (Id.) 3 Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a federal court depends on 4 the existence of a “case or controversy”; without a case or controversy, a claim is moot. 5 Pub. Util. Comm’n of State of Cal. v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996). A claim 6 is considered moot if it is no longer a present and live controversy or if no effective relief 7 can be granted. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 527– 28 (9th Cir. 1996). When a question 8 before the court has been mooted by changes in circumstances after the complaint is filed, 9 there is no justiciable controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968). 10 Questions of mootness regarding injunctions are viewed “in light of the present 11 circumstances.” Id. at 528. “[A] suit for injunctive relief is normally moot upon the 12 termination of the conduct at issue.” Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 13 2004). Thus, if a prisoner is no longer subjected to prison officials’ allegedly unlawful 14 activity, the complaint for injunctive relief becomes moot. Wiggins v. Rushen, 760 F.2d 15 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 1985). A case becomes moot only “if subsequent events ma[ke] it 16 absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to 17 recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 18 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 19 Plaintiff concedes he has received the injunctive relief he requested in both Motions 20 for Preliminary Injunction. Thus, Plaintiff is no longer subject to the allegedly unlawful 21 activity he asserted in his Motions. Plaintiff has neither argued nor shown that any 22 allegedly wrongful behavior is reasonably expected to recur. Thus, the Court will deny as 23 moot Plaintiff’s Motions. 24 IT IS ORDERED: 25 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion 26 for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Medical Treatment (Doc. 2) and 27 Motion for Emergency Injunction (Doc. 24). 28 . . . . 1 (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Emergency 2| Medical Treatment (Doc. 2) and Motion for Emergency Injunction (Doc. 24) are denied as moot. 4 Dated this 5th day of August, 2023. 5 WM clacl T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28