Opinion
No. 20-55061
05-13-2020
TIMOTHY DEANORE WILKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
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 Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 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.