Allen R. Turk, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James Gomez, Theo White, D. Greene, P.m. Scott, J. Demasa,attorney General of the State of California,defendants-appellees, 127 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 127 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Oct. 20, 1997. **Decided Oct. 24, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. CV-93-1925-LKK; Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief Judge, Presiding.

Before THOMPSON, T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

This appeal from the district court's order denying appellant's motion for preliminary injunction 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 sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 1995). The record before us shows that the court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant's request for preliminary injunctive relief was moot because appellees had corrected the harms complained of. See id. The court's factual findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, the court's order denying the preliminary injunction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4; 9th Cir. R. 3-3(d)

 *

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

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.