Chris O’neill v. JOHN PEERY, Dr.;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS O’NEILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN PEERY, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15251
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00030-LRH-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 9, 2013 **
Before: TASHIMA, M.SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Christopher O’Neill appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his
request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendant prison officials and from
FILED
SEP 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

13-15281 2
the district court’s denial of his motion to file a first amended complaint. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm in part and dismiss in
part.
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 Resources Defense Council, 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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court's order denying O’Neill’s
motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469
F.3d 1221, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --