Opinion
22-15205
06-01-2022
JOHNNY LEE JONES III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARTH, Sgt.; HOWARD, Officer; COSBY, Officer; THOMPSON, Officer; WARREN JOHNSON, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 17, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00028-MMD-CSD Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Arizona state prisoner Johnny Lee Jones III 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 First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. 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). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones's motion for a preliminary injunction because Jones failed to demonstrate that such relief is warranted. 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).
Jones's motion to expedite (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied as moot.
Jones's request to certify a constitutional question to the attorney general (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).