Robert Rosebrock v. Ronald Mathis, et al, No. 10-56132 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT ROSEBROCK, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-56132 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01878-SJO-SS v. MEMORANDUM * RONALD MATHIS, Chief of Police of The Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, in his official capacity and DONNA BEITER, Director of The Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, in her official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Robert Rosebrock appeals the district court s denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against Veterans Administration officials in his action alleging viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm. We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2008); see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order denying the preliminary injunction. AFFIRMED. 2 10-56132

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.