CLARENCE LEONARD HEARNS, Jr. v. Cisnero

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE LEONARD HEARNS, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CISNERO; KATHLEEN ALLISON,
Secretary; R. MORALES, Associate
Warden; FRASSER, “A” Facility Captain,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16951
D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01033-JLT-CDB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Clarence Leonard Hearns, Jr., appeals pro se from
the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional deprivation of his property. We
* 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
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16951
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of
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 Hearns’s motion
for a preliminary injunction because Hearns failed to establish the requirements for
a preliminary injunction. See id. (plaintiff seeking 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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hearns’s motion for
reconsideration because Hearns set forth no valid grounds for reconsideration. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59).
Hearns’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --