Unpublished Disposition, 936 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseFaysal Mansoor PASHA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Daniel J. McCARTHY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 88-15099.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 1991.* Decided June 21, 1991.
Before BEEZER, WIGGINS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Faysal Mansoor Pasha, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and we affirm.1
In his complaint, Pasha alleged numerous violations of his constitutional rights including denial of his right of access to the courts, interference with the practice of his religion, and failure to provide adequate medical care. Approximately one year after Pasha filed his second amended complaint, he sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from transferring him from Old Folsom State Prison to New Folsom State Prison. Pasha alleged that prison officials were transferring him in retaliation for his legal activities and to hinder his ability to prosecute this action. The district court denied Pasha's motion for a preliminary injunction.
We reverse a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction only where the court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology Internat'l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the district court properly applied the two alternative tests set out by this court in City of Tenakee Springs v. Block, 778 F.2d 1402, 1407 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted):
The first test requires that a court find (1) the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the injunctive relief is not granted; (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits; (3) in balancing the equities the nonmoving party will not be harmed more than the moving party is helped; and (4) granting injunctive relief is in the public interest.... The second test requires the moving party to demonstrate either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm; or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pasha's motion for a preliminary injunction because he failed to satisfy either of these standards for injunctive relief.
AFFIRMED.2
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
The appellees argue that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the preliminary injunction sought by Pasha did not relate to the relief sought in his complaint. We disagree. Pasha's complaint alleged that the defendants had interfered with his right of access to the courts in a variety of ways. Similarly, in his motion for a preliminary injunction, Pasha alleged that the defendants were transferring him in order to retaliate against him for filing this action and to impede his ability to prosecute it. Accordingly, there is a sufficient nexus between the relief sought in Pasha's complaint and his request for a preliminary injunction. Moreover, because the transfer occurred after Pasha filed his complaint, he could not have included the transfer as a ground for relief in his complaint
In his opening brief, Pasha also raised various issues regarding the claims alleged in his complaint. We cannot consider these issues because the district court has not rendered a final judgment in this action
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
