Anthony L. Rodrigues v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden, Director, State of Arizona Dept. of Corrections;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY L. RODRIGUES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, Warden, Director,
State of Arizona Dept. of Corrections; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17346
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-08272-DGC-
ESW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Anthony L. Rodrigues appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising
from a prison riot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review
* 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
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17346
for an abuse of discretion. Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr.,
810 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rodrigues’s motion
for preliminary injunctive relief because Rodrigues failed to establish “a sufficient
nexus between the claims raised in [his] motion for injunctive relief and the claims
set forth in the underlying complaint.” Id. at 636; see also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (setting forth standard for issuance of preliminary
injunction).
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 --