Jonathan Jason Rodriguez v. Brad Cain;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN JASON RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRAD CAIN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-36006
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00087-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Karin J. Immergut, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Jonathan Jason Rodriguez appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his third motion for a preliminary injunction in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion.
* 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
APR 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-36006
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 Rodriguez’s third
motion for a preliminary injunction because Rodriguez failed to establish that he
was likely to suffer irreparable harm. See Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822
F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “a plaintiff must demonstrate
immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief”;
“[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient” to obtain a
preliminary injunction (alteration in original, citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). In addition, Rodriguez’s third motion for a preliminary injunction
contained allegations concerning a nonparty officer. See Zepeda v. U.S. INS,
753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (explaining that the scope of an injunction is
limited to the parties in the action).
Rodriguez’s motion for an injunction, set forth in the opening brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --