JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ V. BRAD CAIN, No. 20-36006 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JONATHAN JASON RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-36006 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00087-AC MEMORANDUM* BRAD CAIN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. 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). 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 20-36006

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.