Omar Epps v. N. Grannis

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-56589 · 2012-02-29 · Unpublished

Omar Ernest EPPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N. GRANNIS, Chief, Inmate Appeals Branch; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Mary M. McKeown, Jay S. Bybee

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS OMAR ERNEST EPPS, No. 11-56589 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01949-BEN-MDD v. MEMORANDUM * N. GRANNIS, Chief, Inmate Appeals Branch; et al., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Omar Ernest Epps appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against several prison official defendant-appellees.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

* 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). 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. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2008); see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (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). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction.

AFFIRMED.

2 11-56589