Robert Joseph Benge v. Charles L. Ryan;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT JOSEPH BENGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-15438
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00402-DGC-
BSB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Robert Joseph Benge appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motions for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We
review for an abuse of discretion, Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632
FILED
SEP 04 2015
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 --

F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Benge’s requests for
injunctive relief after concluding that, on the record before it, Benge did not
establish a likelihood that he would succeed on his deliberate indifference claims,
or establish any actual injury arising from the alleged interference with legal
photocopies. See Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Humble, 753 F.3d 905, 911
(9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish, among
other things, that he is likely to succeed on the merits); see also Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (actual injury requirement); Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal
standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion regarding the
course of treatment is not sufficient).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Benge’s motion
to appoint an expert because the request for injunctive relief was not so complex as
to require an expert. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan,
180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard of review).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time in the
reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
15-15438 2

-- 2 of 2 --