Kenneth A. Friedman v. NATHANIEL WOODS, Chief Psychologist at NNCC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH A. FRIEDMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATHANIEL WOODS, Chief Psychologist
at NNCC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-16136
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00433-MMD-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Kenneth A. Friedman appeals pro se from the district
* 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
DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16136
court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging various claims. 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 Friedman failed to establish a relationship between the
requested injunctive relief and the underlying retaliation claims in the operative
complaint. 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --