JESS SMITH V. B. GRONSETH, No. 17-35156 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESS R. SMITH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35156 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05775-BHSDWC v. B. GRONSETH, CBCC Law Librarian; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Washington state prisoner Jess R. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). abuse of discretion, Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief because Smith failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims and that absent such relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (setting forth standards for issuance of preliminary injunction); Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that mandatory injunctions are not generally granted unless “extreme or very serious damage will result” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 352-54 (1996) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement). The district court properly determined that Smith’s allegations regarding the denial of access to legal supplies and to his legal materials are outside the scope of his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. AFFIRMED. 2 17-35156

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.