Tonatihu Aguilar v. Charles L. Ryan;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONATIHU AGUILAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-16412
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00336-DJH-MHB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Tonatihu Aguilar appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his amended emergency motion for a preliminary injunction
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of
* 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
NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16412
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 Aguilar failed to establish a relationship between the requested
injunctive relief and defendant Henderson. 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).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --