Unpublished Disposition, 925 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 925 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1991)

William McKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Michael HILL, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-15644.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 1991.* Decided Feb. 22, 1991.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

William McKinney, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison authorities. In his complaint, McKinney raised numerous claims including harassment by prison officials in retaliation for his legal activities, conspiracy to deprive him of educational privileges, and conspiracy to deprive him of due process. McKinney sought a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from engaging in this alleged conduct and to lift the ban which prohibits him from attending a prison college program in person. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and we affirm.

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 McKinney's motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction because he failed to qualify for injunctive relief under these standards.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition 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 Circuit 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.