CLARENCE HEARNS, JR. V. CISNERO, ET AL, No. 22-16951 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLARENCE LEONARD HEARNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-16951 D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01033-JLT-CDB MEMORANDUM* CISNERO; KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary; R. MORALES, Associate Warden; FRASSER, “A” Facility Captain, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2023** Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Clarence Leonard Hearns, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional deprivation of his property. We * 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). 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). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hearns’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Hearns failed to establish the requirements for a preliminary injunction. See id. (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 in denying Hearns’s motion for reconsideration because Hearns set forth no valid grounds for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59). Hearns’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16951
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.
