LANCE WOOD V. SUE WASHBURN, No. 20-35892 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 29 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE CONWAY WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35892 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00362-SB MEMORANDUM* SUE WASHBURN, Superintendent of Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution ("EOCI"), in her individual and official capacities; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Stacie F. Beckerman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted January 20, 2021*** Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Oregon state prisoner Lance Conway Wood appeals pro se from the district * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We 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 in denying Wood’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Wood failed to establish that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm. See Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient [to obtain a preliminary injunction]”). We reject as without merit Wood’s contention that the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Wood’s motion for a preliminary injunction. AFFIRMED. 2 20-35892

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.