PINSON v. UNKNOWN PARTY (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson appeals pro se from the district court's order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction in her action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to her safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pinson's motion for a preliminary injunction because Pinson failed to establish that such relief is warranted. See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits, she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in her favor, and an injunction is in the public interest).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pinson's request for judicial notice, set forth in her opening brief, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.