AGUILAR v. RYAN (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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.