Unpublished Disposition, 928 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 928 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991)

Nickolas John ANDRADE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-15970.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; No. CV-89-1619-CAM, C.A. Muecke, District Judge, Presiding.

D. Ariz.

AFFIRMED.

Before CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, DAVID R. THOMPSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Nickolas John Andrade, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for a preliminary injunction in his action brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), and we affirm.

We will reverse a district court's grant or 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 Int'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). In denying Andrade's motion, the district court determined that he did not meet the requirements of either test. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the denial of Andrade's motion for a preliminary injunction based on the reasoning of the district court's well-reasoned order.

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 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.