Steven McDonald v. Kenneth Lauren ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 20 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEVEN DARBY McDONALD,                          No.    18-35614
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05013-RBL-
    DWC
    v.
    KENNETH LAUREN, M.D., Medical                   MEMORANDUM*
    Director, MCC/WSR; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 17, 2018**
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    Steven Darby McDonald appeals pro se from the district court’s order
    denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     alleging
    deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    (a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel & Lodging
    *
    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).
    Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 
    834 F.3d 958
    , 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm in part,
    vacate in part, and remand.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDonald’s
    motion for a preliminary injunction requesting transfer to another prison as moot,
    because McDonald was transferred to another prison after his amended motion for
    a preliminary injunction was filed. However, it is unclear from the record whether
    McDonald’s remaining requests for injunctive relief were also moot. See Walker
    v. Beard, 
    789 F.3d 1125
    , 1132 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing when a prisoner’s
    requests for injunctive relief relating to prison conditions are rendered moot). We
    vacate the judgment in part, and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the
    district court should consider in the first instance the merits of McDonald’s motion
    for a preliminary injunction, and can consider supplemental filings from McDonald
    regarding his requests for injunctive relief.
    McDonald’s pending motions are denied.
    Appellees shall bear the costs on appeal.
    AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-35614

Filed Date: 12/20/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2018