FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 14 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN FRANCIS, No. 13-35317

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-06023-RBL-JRC

v. MEMORANDUM* M.D. STEVEN HAMMOND, Chief Medical Officer, Washington Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; M.D. SARA SMITH, Facility Medical Director, Stafford Creek Corrections Center, in her individual and official capacities; M.D. J DAVID KENNEY, Stafford Creek Corrections Center, in his individual capacity; BERNARD WARNER, Secretary, Washington Department of Corrections, in his individual and official capacities; BRANDON WELLS, Correctional Officer, Airway Heights Corrections Center, in his individual capacity; MARTHA HAYES, Correctional Officer, Airway Heights Corrections Center, in her individual capacity; WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellants.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 4, 2013 Seattle, Washington

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellee Shawn Francis brought the underlying action against

prison doctors and officials for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s serious

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This appeal is from a district

court order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the

defendants to send Francis to an orthopedic specialist for evaluation of his right

shoulder.

At oral argument the parties advised the court that this injunction has now

been complied with. This appeal is therefore moot and must be dismissed because

the plaintiff has received the relief that was ordered. See Honig v. Students of the

Cal. Sch. for the Blind, 471 U.S. 148, 149 (1985). The dismissal of this

preliminary injunction appeal does not affect the underlying district court action.

DISMISSED.

2