Jeremy Pinson v. Estrada ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON, No. 20-15068
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00535-RM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ESTRADA, named as Nurse Estrada; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
COX, named as FNU Cox; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson 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).
court’s order denying her motions for preliminary injunctions in her action brought
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. 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 may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v.
Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pinson’s request for
injunctive relief and motion for reconsideration related to defendants’ alleged
interference with her right to prosecute this action because Pinson failed to show
any actual injury arising from the alleged interference. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (setting forth standards for issuance of preliminary
injunction); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (setting forth elements of
an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
(setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e)).
Denial of Pinson’s request for a preliminary injunction requiring defendants
to provide Pinson with surgery for her nerve injury, a CPAP machine, and sleep
medication, and denial of Pinson’s request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting
2 20-15068
defendants from retaliating against Pinson by transferring her or placing her in
segregated housing, was not an abuse of discretion because Pinson’s requested
relief was not tied to the claims in the complaint. See 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 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”).
Denial of Pinson’s request for reconsideration of the district court’s prior
denial of a preliminary injunction related to defendants’ alleged restriction of her
pain medication was proper because the motion was untimely. See Credit Suisse
First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005) (a motion
that merely seeks to relitigate the issues underlying an original preliminary
injunction order must be filed within Rule 59(e)’s time limit).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-15068