Summary
affirming denial of a preliminary injunction where prisoner failed to establish a relationship between the /// /// /// requested injunctive relief and the underlying retaliation claims in the complaint
Summary of this case from Entsminger v. AranasOpinion
No. 19-16136
12-16-2019
KENNETH A. FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATHANIEL WOODS, Chief Psychologist at NNCC; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00433-MMD-WGC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Nevada state prisoner Kenneth A. Friedman appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction because Friedman failed to establish a relationship between the requested injunctive relief and the underlying retaliation claims in the operative complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (absent a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested).
AFFIRMED.