The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-16947•Michael Lenoir Smith v. YATES, Warden;
13-16947Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 28, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
YATES, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16947
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01547-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, TASHIMA and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Michael Lenoir Smith 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
FEB 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 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 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).
AFFIRMED.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.