Mikeal Glenn Stine v. K. GARCIA, Trust Fund Supervisor, USP/Tucson, Arizona

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIKEAL GLENN STINE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
K. GARCIA, Trust Fund Supervisor,
USP/Tucson, Arizona,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
B. VON BLANKENSEE; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 22-15120
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00187-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Mikeal Glenn Stine appeals pro se from the district court’s
* 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
JUN 29 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15120
interlocutory order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), alleging a First Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion a district
court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Puente Ariz. v. Arpaio, 821
F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stine’s motion for a
preliminary injunction because the district court lacked the authority to grant
Stine’s requested relief as it 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, 636-37
(9th Cir. 2015) (holding that the district court lacks authority to grant injunctive
relief absent a “sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for
injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint”); Zepeda v.
U.S. Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (explaining that the
scope of an injunction is limited to the parties in the action).
Appellee’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --