Escalera v. Corizon Health Incorporated, CV-19-04934-PHX-MTL (JFM). (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20200310929
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2020
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL T. LIBURDI , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction with his Complaint seeking a Bi-PAP machine to treat his obstructive sleep apnea (Doc. 2 at 13). In his reply, however, Plaintiff confirms that he received the Bi-PAP machine in November 2019 (Doc. 13 at 10). His request for injunctive relief is therefore moot. Shabazz v. Giurbino,
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL T. LIBURDI , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction with his Complaint seeking a Bi-PAP machine to treat his obstructive sleep apnea (Doc. 2 at 13). In his reply, however, Plaintiff confirms that he received the Bi-PAP machine in November 2019 (Doc. 13 at 10). His request for injunctive relief is therefore moot. Shabazz v. Giurbino, 2..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL T. LIBURDI, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction with his Complaint seeking a Bi-PAP machine to treat his obstructive sleep apnea (Doc. 2 at 13). In his reply, however, Plaintiff confirms that he received the Bi-PAP machine in November 2019 (Doc. 13 at 10). His request for injunctive relief is therefore moot. Shabazz v. Giurbino, 2017 WL 2671082, *12 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (finding request for injunctive relief moot where the plaintiff received a form of the relief he requested).
To the extent that Plaintiff maintains he is entitled to damages because of the suffering he experienced by the delay in receiving the mask, that is beyond the scope of his preliminary injunctive relief request and will be addressed when the Court considers the merits of his claims.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) is denied as moot.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff also claims that he must receive a device to clean hi Bi-Pap machine (Doc. 15 at 13-14). But the Court will not consider that at this time because it was not part of Plaintiff's original motion for injunctive relief and there is no basis to conclude at this time that he will suffer imminent, irreparable injury without a cleaning device.
Source: Leagle
