Mark Anthony Fregia v. P. A. Miranda; Savage; Ridge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK ANTHONY FREGIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
P. A. MIRANDA; SAVAGE; RIDGE,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15893
D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01068-JLT-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Mark Anthony Fregia appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
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
JAN 19 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-15893
discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052
(9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fregia’s motion for
a preliminary injunction because Fregia’s requested relief was not tied to the
claims and parties in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s
Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that, when a plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the
motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint”);
Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that, in the
absence of any other relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for
injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint, a plaintiff
must demonstrate the challenged practices affect the plaintiff’s ability to litigate
the action).
We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s orders denying Fregia’s
motions for a stay of proceedings and for disqualification of defendant’s counsel.
See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 825 (9th
Cir. 2018) (“[O]rders that regulate the conduct of litigation . . . are not appealable
under § 1292(a)(1).”); Lynn v. Gateway Unified Sch. Dist., 771 F.3d 1135, 1139
(9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that counsel disqualification orders are not final
appealable orders).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-15893
Fregia’s motion for injunctive relief and appointment of counsel (Docket
Entry No. 13), motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 17), motion for
sanctions (Docket Entry No. 25), and requests for injunctive relief set forth in the
opening brief, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --