Demond Charles Brackett v. WENDELL ANDERSON, Sheriff;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEMOND CHARLES BRACKETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WENDELL ANDERSON, Sheriff; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16741
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02282-KJM-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Demond Charles Brackett appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying without prejudice his motion for a preliminary
injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16741
discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th
Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brackett’s motion
for a preliminary injunction because Brackett failed to demonstrate that such relief
is warranted. See id. (explaining that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction
must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in
his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest).
Brackett’s motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief (Docket
Entry No. 10) is denied as unnecessary because his opening brief (Docket Entry
No. 12) was timely filed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --