Opinion
22-55751
10-18-2022
R. J. KULICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEVERLY VANDERMEULEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:22-cv-01179-MEMF-AS for the Central District of California Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
R.J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action alleging federal and state law 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 Kulick's motion for a preliminary injunction because Kulick 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).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).