Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis v. M. Gutierrez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 22, 2023
• Docket: 23-15306
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNESTO ZARAGOSA-SOLIS, No. 23-15306

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00562-JCH

v. MEMORANDUM* M. GUTIERREZ, Warden; CHRISTENSEN, Lt.; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; C. NEWLAND, physician assistant; K. MORAN, SIS Technician,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction in his action

alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* 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). § 1292(a)(1). We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction, Hunt v.

Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009), and we

dismiss this appeal as moot.

Zaragosa-Solis’s appeal is moot because, during the pendency of this appeal,

Zaragosa-Solis amended the complaint that formed the basis of the appeal. See

Falck N. Cal. Corp. v. Scott Griffith Collaborative Sols., LLC, 25 F.4th 763, 765-

66 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that the amendment of a complaint on which an

interlocutory appeal is based moots the appeal, even if the amended complaint is

“substantively the same,” because the prior complaint becomes “a legal nullity”);

Akina v. Hawaii, 835 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir. 2016) (“An interlocutory appeal of

the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot when a court can no longer grant any

effective relief sought in the injunction request.”); ACF Indus. Inc. v. Cal. State Bd.

of Equalization, 42 F.3d 1286, 1292 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing as moot certain

claims on appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction because the claims

were dismissed before the district court while the appeal was pending).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Zaragosa-Solis’s contentions

regarding the merits of the appeal.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

2 23-15306