Clinton Brown v. CLARK R. TAYLOR, AICP, The Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLINTON BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLARK R. TAYLOR, AICP, The Los
Angeles County Department of Regional
Planning,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 23-4131
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-09203-MEMF-KS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Clinton Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motions for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fifth
Amendment takings claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
* 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 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-4131
We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown’s motions
for a preliminary injunction because Brown failed to establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits of his claim or that there are serious questions going to the
merits. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir.
2017) (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, and noting that if a plaintiff fails to show
likelihood of success on the merits, the court need not consider the other factors, in
the absence of “serious questions going to the merits”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendant’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --