James Plas Sams v. RALPH DIAZ, Secretary of CDCR;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES PLAS SAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RALPH DIAZ, Secretary of CDCR; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15370
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00568-JAM-
DMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner James Plas Sams 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 federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City &
* 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
AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15370
County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on
any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Denial of Sams’s motion for a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of
discretion because Sams 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, he is 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); see also Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v.
Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that the district
court lacks authority to grant the relief requested absent a “sufficient nexus
between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth
in the underlying complaint”).
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --