United States v. 2020-05-13 | 20-55061 | TIMOTHY WILKINS V. CDCR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY DEANORE WILKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55061

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-09116-VAP-E

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

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

California state prisoner Timothy Deanore Wilkins appeals pro se from the
district court’s interlocutory order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

*
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 13 2020

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

2 20-55061
constitutional claims relating to his inmate work assignment. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse a 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 may affirm on any basis supported by the
record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Denial of Wilkins’s motion for a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of
discretion because the district court lacked the authority to grant Wilkins’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. 1985) (explaining that the scope of
an injunction is limited to the parties in the action).
Cox and Roth’s motion to dismiss California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as an appellee and amend the caption (Docket Entry No.
13) is denied.
AFFFIRMED.