Deng #304373 v. Henry et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
KAB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Tony Deng,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Henry, et al,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01554-PHX-JAT (JFM)
ORDER
Plaintiff Tony Deng, who is currently confined in the Arizona State Prison
Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.
1.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 23).
The Court will deny the Motion.
I. Background
On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated
Eighth Amendment medical care claims in Counts One and Two of his Complaint against
Defendants Barnes, Perea,1 and NaphCare based on Plaintiff’s allegations that between
August 2022 and May 2023, he was denied a full meal after receiving his morning insulin
treatments (Count One), and was forced to endure severe pain without medication for a 90-
day period and a second, 41-day period due to NaphCare’s failure to properly train its
1 Although Defendant Perea was initially named as a Doe Defendant, Plaintiff later
identified and substituted Defendant Perea as the correct Defendant to his claim. (Doc.
14.)
Case 2:25-cv-01554-JAT-JFM Document 52 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
healthcare providers regarding medications for chronic care patients (Count Two). (Doc.
6.) Defendants Barnes and Perea were instructed to respond to Count One and Defendant
NaphCare was instructed to respond to Count Two. (Id.) The Court dismissed the
remaining claims and Defendants. (Id.)
II. Plaintiff’s Motion
Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order directing NaphCare to establish that
all approved chronic care keep-on-person (KOP) medications can be renewed and refilled
automatically upon request and medications be delivered within 10 days; that all approved
KOP medical supplies be supplied to prisoners within 45 days; that over-the-counter
medications for common illness such as flu or cold be delivered within 24-48 hours of
request; and that NaphCare work with security staff to “develop a process that would
ensure insulin administrations occur at a reasonable time daily and consistently.” (Doc. 23
at 9-10.)
In support of his requests, Plaintiff asserts that on September 2, 2025 and November
28, 2025, he requested an eye exam, and although he has told the appointment was
scheduled, he still had not been seen as of December 9, 2025. Plaintiff asserts that on
November 20, 2025, he requested medication for cough and runny nose and, although the
request was approved, he still had not received it 19 days later. Plaintiff asserts that on
February 2, 2025, a doctor ordered a pair of shoes for Plaintiff due to his diabetic
conditions, and although he submitted four inquiries as to the statutes of the shoes, the
shoes were not given to him. Plaintiff asserts that nine months later, he addressed the issue
of the shoes with the doctor and they had to be reordered and Plaintiff had still not received
the shoes a month later.
III. Legal Standard
“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should
not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’”
Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520
U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555
Case 2:25-cv-01554-JAT-JFM Document 52 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy
never awarded as of right”). Nonetheless, “federal courts must not shrink from their
obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners” and must
not “allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve
intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Porretti v. Dzurenda, 11 F.4th 1037,
1047 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure must show: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his
favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. When the
government opposes a preliminary injunction, “[t]he third and fourth factors of the
preliminary-injunction test—balance of equities and public interest—merge into one
inquiry.” Porretti, 11 F.4th at 1047. The “balance of equities” concerns the burdens or
hardships to a prisoner complainant compared with the burden on the government
defendants if an injunction is ordered. Id. The public interest mostly concerns the
injunction’s impact on nonparties rather than parties. Id. (citation omitted). Regardless,
“[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional
rights.” Id. (citation omitted).
Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than a prohibitory injunction,
injunctive relief is “subject to a higher standard” and is “permissible when ‘extreme or very
serious damage will result’ that is not ‘capable of compensation in damages,’ and the merits
of the case are not ‘doubtful.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 999 (9th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879
(9th Cir. 2009)). Further, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, injunctive relief must
be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000).
The Court lacks jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief that are not related to
the claims pleaded in the operative complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v.
Case 2:25-cv-01554-JAT-JFM Document 52 Filed 05/12/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Queen’s Med. Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[w]hen a plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the
authority to issue an injunction”); see also Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th
Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (a party seeking injunctive relief must establish a relationship
between the claimed injury and the conduct asserted in the complaint); see also Prince v.
Schriro, CV-08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (unless
a claim concerns access to the courts, the Plaintiff must show a nexus between the relief
sought and the claims in the lawsuit.).
IV. Discussion
Plaintiff’s Motion seeks relief based on an unscheduled eye exam, nonreceipt of
medication for a cough and runny nose, and nonreceipt of medical shoes. (Doc. 23). None
of those issues are alleged in his operative Complaint, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to
grant Plaintiff relief based on actions that have arisen since he filed his operative Complaint
and that lack a nexus to the claims in his underlying Complaint. (Doc. 6). Moreover,
Plaintiff’s Motion is entirely based on past conduct and seeks broad relief based on
speculative conduct that might occur in the future. Plaintiff’s speculation that he will
continue to suffer delays is not sufficiently concrete to establish that he will suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Defendants are already required to
provide Plaintiff with constitutionally adequate care and Plaintiff does not identify
anything specific for the Court to address in a preliminary order. Because Plaintiff seeks
relief based on actions unrelated to the claims in his operative Complaint, Plaintiff does
not seek narrowly tailored relief, the relief Plaintiff seeks is based on speculative future
actions of Defendant NaphCare, and Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of an injunction, his Motion will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 23).
/ / /
Case 2:25-cv-01554-JAT-JFM Document 52 Filed 05/12/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 23) is denied.
Dated this 12th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-01554-JAT-JFM Document 52 Filed 05/12/26 Page 5 of 5