Fred Jay Otto v. Federal Bureau of Prisons;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRED JAY OTTO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-56438
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-06014-MMM-
CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 9, 2013 **
Before: TASHIMA, M.SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Fred Otto appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his request for
preliminary injunctive relief against defendant prison officials. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-56438 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 --