Jose E. Hernandez v. Indymac Bank;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE E. HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INDYMAC BANK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17669
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00369-MMD-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 8, 2013**
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CANBY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Jose Hernandez appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his
request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendants. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 Resources Defense Council, 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --