LEWIS A. HARRY, Jr. v. DIANE BOHUSZEWICZ, CO IV East Unit; Z. YOUNG, Sgt. East Unit

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEWIS A. HARRY, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DIANE BOHUSZEWICZ, CO IV East Unit;
Z. YOUNG, Sgt. East Unit,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
STATE OF ARIZONA; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-16657
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02234-DLR-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Lewis A. Harry, Jr. appeals pro se from the district
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-16657
court’s order denying his motions for preliminary injunctions in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 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 Harry’s motions for
preliminary injunctions because the district court lacked authority to grant the
injunctive relief requested. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med.
Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (when a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
“there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for
injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint”);
Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that in the
absence of any other relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for
injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint, a plaintiff
must demonstrate the challenged practices affect the plaintiff’s ability to litigate
the action).
We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s orders regarding discovery and
order denying Harry’s motion for appointment of counsel. See Nat’l Wildlife
Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 825 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Orders
relating to discovery . . . are orders that regulate the conduct of litigation and are
not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).”); Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-16657
Cir. 1985) (order denying appointment of counsel is not a final appealable order).
Harry’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --