DAVID THOMAS V. ISIDRO BACA, No. 19-16089 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID JONATHAN THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-16089 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00508-RCJ-CBC v. MEMORANDUM* ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner David Jonathan Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his September 12, 2018 motion for a preliminary injunction and his motion for reconsideration of the denial of a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First * 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). Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (denial of preliminary injunction); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (denial of reconsideration). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomas’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Thomas failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits. See Jackson, 746 F.3d at 958 (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomas’s motion for reconsideration because Thomas failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)). AFFIRMED. 2 19-16089
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.
