Kelvin X. Singleton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. K.w. Prunty, Warden; B.l. Reed; S. Garcia, W.g. Ledbetter;d.m. Sylvester, Lieutenant; G.j. Janda, Corr.lieutenant; D.r. Gonzales, Defendants-appellees, 119 F.3d 7 (9th Cir. 1997)
Annotate this CaseBefore: HUG, Chief Judge, KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), and we affirm.
Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court has abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. See Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir. 1996). The record before us shows that the district court did not rely upon an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant's showing of probable success on the merits was insufficient to warrant preliminary injunctive relief. See id. The court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See id.
Accordingly, the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth 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 Ninth Cir.R. 36-3
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.
