Opinion
CV-21-00498-TUC-JCH
12-07-2022
Antonio Crawford, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Tubb, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
John C. Hinderaker United States District Judge
Before the Court are pro se Plaintiff's "Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Sanctions" ("Motion I") (Doc. 41) and "Motion to Dismiss Emergency Injunction Filed in August as Moot Without Prejudice" ("Motion II") (Doc. 42). Defendants responded to Motion I. (Doc. 43.)
In Motion I, Plaintiff seeks immediate transfer to a Florida prison facility. (Doc. 41 at 1.) Plaintiff has since been transferred to the Florida facility. (See Doc. 44.) In Motion II, Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the injunction portion of Motion I, stating that Defendants "stop[p]ed and removed me from those dire conditions at USP Tucson[.]" (Doc. 42 at 1.) For these reasons, the Court will deny in part as moot Motion I and grant in part Motion II.
In Motion II, Plaintiff states "my sanctions [sought in Motion I] shall stay[.]" (Doc. 42 at 2.) The title of Motion I includes the phrase "Motion for Sanctions," and Plaintiff's attached affidavit states that "[s]anctions should be imposed to deter [Defendants] unlawful acts in the future." (Doc. 41-1 at 4.) The Court understands these statements as indicating Plaintiff intends to move for sanctions in Motion I. But Plaintiff does not provide evidence that sanctions are warranted or specify what sanctions or against whom Plaintiff seeks them. To the extent Plaintiff is merely restating her original prayer for relief, (see Doc. 1 at 6 (requesting punitive damages)), Plaintiff's Motion I request is premature and superfluous. (See Doc. 46 at 3 (Defendants will respond to the complaint by January 27, 2023); Doc. 33 at 8 (denying as moot Plaintiff's Emergency Ex Parte Motion for TRO); Doc. 40 (granting leave to appeal Doc. 33 in forma pauperis).) The Court therefore also will deny in part Motion I and deny in part Motion II.
For the reasons above, IT IS ORDERED DENYING IN PART AS MOOT AND DENYING IN PART Motion I (Doc. 41);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Motion II (Doc. 42).