Jeremy Pinson v. Unknown Party

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 11, 2018
• Docket: 18-16099
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 11 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON, No. 18-16099

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-02059-DCB

v. MEMORANDUM* UNKNOWN PARTY, John Doe #1, Special Investigative Agent; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 5, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction in her action under

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to her safety. We have jurisdiction

* 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel &

Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pinson’s motion for

a preliminary injunction because Pinson failed to establish that such relief is

warranted. See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th

Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that she is likely

to succeed on the merits, she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in her favor, and an injunction is in

the public interest).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pinson’s request for judicial notice, set forth in her opening brief, is denied

as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16099