Kevin Jones v. Richard Donovan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN WALKER JONES, No. 19-55206
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02454-BTM-
BLM
v.
RICHARD J. DONOVAN, CDCR; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry Ted Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kevin Walker Jones appeals pro se from the district
court’s interlocutory order denying his motion for a permanent injunction in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Cummings v. Connell,
*
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).
316 F.3d 886, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones’s motion for
a permanent injunction because the district court lacked the authority to grant
Jones’s requested relief as it was related to non-parties. See 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).
We do not consider Jones’s remaining contentions because they are outside
the scope of this interlocutory appeal.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55206