United States v. 2020-05-14 | 20-15117 | CHRISTOPHER HENSON V. CORIZON HEALTH, INC. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER JAMES HENSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

STEWART, Unknown; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 20-15117

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04396-MTL-
DMF

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

*
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

MAY 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-15117
Arizona state prisoner Christopher James Henson appeals pro se from the
district court’s orders denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and his
motion for reconsideration of the denial of a preliminary injunction in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. 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) (denial of preliminary
injunction); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (denial of reconsideration). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Henson’s motions
for a preliminary injunction because Henson failed to demonstrate that such relief
is warranted. See Jackson, 746 F.3d at 958 (plaintiff seeking preliminary
injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in
his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Henson’s motion
for reconsideration because Henson failed to demonstrate any basis for such
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e)).
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).

3 20-15117
AFFIRMED.