Christopher Brightly v. Corizon Health, Inc.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 9 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER BRIGHTLY, No. 21-16321
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00127-JCH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Charles Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 7, 2022**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: GRABER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Christopher Brightly, an Arizona state prisoner who is experiencing several
health problems, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary
injunction in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth
Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and affirm.
We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.
Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009).
1. The district court correctly held that some of the relief that Brightly
initially sought in his preliminary injunction motion was moot because he had already
received the requested remedies. See Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.
2007) (“[A] case becomes moot when ‘it no longer present[s] a case or controversy
under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998))); see also Honig v. Students of Cal. Sch. for
the Blind, 471 U.S. 148, 149 (1985) (per curiam) (explaining that an appeal
challenging the issuance of a preliminary injunction is moot if the movants have
already received the injunctive relief they sought).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the remainder
of Brightly’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It is apparent from the record that
the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in
concluding that Brightly failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
-2-
And because Brightly did not meet this burden, the district court did not err by failing
to address separately each of the factors from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848,
856 (9th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
-3-