MEMORANDUM **
Arizona state prisoner Lewis A. Harry, Jr. appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motions for preliminary injunctions in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. 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 Harrys motions for preliminary injunctions because the district court lacked authority to grant the injunctive relief requested. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queens Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (when a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint”); Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that in the absence of any other relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint, a plaintiff must demonstrate the challenged practices affect the plaintiffs ability to litigate the action).
We lack jurisdiction over the district courts orders regarding discovery and order denying Harrys motion for appointment of counsel. See Natl Wildlife Fedn v. Natl Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 825 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Orders relating to discovery ․ are orders that regulate the conduct of litigation and are not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).”); Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir. 1985) (order denying appointment of counsel is not a final appealable order).
Harrys request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.