Case ID: f-appx_683/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark A. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David EVERETT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16745
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 20, 2017
    Mark A. Miller, Pro Se
    D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Mark A. Miller appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an abuse of discretion. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Humble, 753 F.3d 905, 911 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miller’s request for in-junctive relief after concluding that, on the record before it, Miller did not establish a likelihood that he would succeed on his medical deliberate indifference claim. See Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc., 753 F.3d at 911 (plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish, among other things, that he is likely to succeed on the merits); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion regarding the course of treatment is not sufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

Miller was not entitled to injunctive relief regarding his retaliation claim because, on the record presented to the district court, he did not establish a likelihood that he would succeed on that claim. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of retaliation claim in prison context).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This Disposition Is Not Appropriate for Publication and Is Not Precedent Except as Provided By Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.