Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis v. M. Gutierrez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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