David M. Fink, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James H. Gomez, et al., Defendants-appellees, 83 F.3d 426 (9th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore: HALL, THOMPSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
This appeal from the denial of a 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 showing of probable success on the merits and likelihood of irreparable harm was insufficient to warrant preliminary injunctive relief. See id. The court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, the denial of a preliminary injunction is
AFFIRMED.1
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
To the extent that appellant seeks to challenge the district court's order relating to discovery, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that order prior to entry of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1291
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.
