NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN RODRIGUEZ, No. 24-4309 D.C. No. 6:17-cv-00104-BMM Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; THERESA DIEKHANS; THERESA ADAMS; APRIL JONES; SAHRITA JONES; HEATHER SMITH; BRANDI CAMPBELL; BECCI DELINGER; ALANA KIETZMAN; LISA ANDERSON MANGAN; TREVOR LEWIS; ANNA FISHER; JUDY HARTELIUS; AMANDA HOPE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2024** Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

* 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).

Juan Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Rodriguez failed to establish the requirements for such relief. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest). We express no opinion as to the merits of the claims pending in the district court.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-4309