Jehan Mir v. Medical Board of California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-55855 · 2014-01-17 · Unpublished

Jehan Zeb MIR, MD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Stephen S. Trott (author), Richard A. Paez, Carlos T. Bea

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEHAN ZEB MIR, MD, No. 13-55855 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02340-GPC- DHB v. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA; MEMORANDUM* et al., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 13, 2014** Before: TROTT, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Jehan Mir appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). request for preliminary injunctive relief and from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining limited scope of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mir's motion for reconsideration because Mir failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262–63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.