Fly v. Diaz
4:21-cv-00506
| D. Ariz. | Dec 23, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, William Anthony Fly (also known as Toni Fly), a transgender individual, brought Bivens and equal protection claims against officials at USP-Tucson for alleged sexual assault, threats to safety, and discrimination due to her gender identity.
- Plaintiff sought monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, as well as multiple emergency motions for temporary restraining orders demanding significant changes in housing, medical treatment, and protective measures.
- After screening, the Court permitted only certain Eighth Amendment and equal protection claims to proceed, while dismissing the rest and ordering responses on the motion for injunctive relief.
- The Court previously denied Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief, finding no likelihood of success or irreparable harm and noting Plaintiff's transfer out of USP-Tucson.
- In February 2024, the Court dismissed the remaining claims, finding Bivens unavailable for the asserted Eighth Amendment claims (because they were in a new Bivens context) and the injunctive relief claims moot due to Plaintiff’s transfer.
- Plaintiff filed untimely motions for reconsideration and to seal the record, arguing case was not moot, due process violations, fraud on the court, ongoing harm, and bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of claims for injunctive relief | Claims not moot due to ongoing risk and possibility of return to original facility | Claims are moot—Plaintiff is no longer in facility with original defendants and no ongoing adverse effects shown | Claims are moot; risk is speculative; no current injury shown |
| Fraud on the court | Defendants lied and deceived the court to obtain adverse rulings | No evidence of fraud upon court; perjury alone, if present, not fraud on the court | No fraud on court found; perjury insufficient without more |
| Judicial bias/recusal | Court was biased and should disqualify or reopen under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455 | No timely affidavit or recusal motion filed; no evidence of bias | No recusal or reopening warranted; procedures not followed |
| Injunctive relief and supplemental pleading | Entitled to new injunctive relief for ongoing harm; court ignored amendments and due process | No new evidence or reason to revisit prior denials; amendments improper, untimely, and did not comply with rules | Relief denied; no good cause for reconsideration; procedural failures |
| Sealing the record | Entire record should be sealed for safety reasons | Only compelling reasons/good cause justify sealing; prior sealing was limited | Motion to seal denied; no grounds to seal whole record |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (remedy for constitutional violations by federal agents)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (past injury alone insufficient for injunctive relief; must show ongoing adverse effects)
- De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (scope of injunctive relief limited to issues raised in complaint)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (fraud on the court defined; historic power to set aside judgments)