Opinion
22-35615
11-23-2022
KENT GLEN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEEFLANG, Paralegal; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 15, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Idaho state prisoner Kent Glen Williams 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 denial of access to the courts. 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 Williams's motion for a preliminary injunction because Williams failed to demonstrate that such relief is warranted. See id. (explaining that a plaintiff seeking a 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).
Williams's motion to establish protocols for e-filing (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied. We do not consider Williams's contentions concerning the underlying merits of this action.
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).