Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0545-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Gonzalez SAENZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. D. REEVES; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 11-17751.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 5, 2012.
    Robert Gonzalez Saenz, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Leslie R. Wagley, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Robert Gonzalez Saenz appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendant correctional officer D. Reeves. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2008); see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the motion for a preliminary injunction for lack of standing, because plaintiff had not alleged any conduct by defendant that warranted injunctive relief. See Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir.2010) (requiring plaintiff to allege an injury in fact, causation, and a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the alleged injury).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Plaintiff’s request in his notice of appeal for a certificate of appealability is denied as unnecessary.