Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0845-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bilal AHDOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LOPEZ, Chief Medical Officer at Kern Valley State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16831
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Bilal Ahdom, Pro Se
    Kathleen Jane Williams, Attorney, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee S. Lopez
    Lucas L. Hennes, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees M. Araich, M. Spaeth, C. Chen, Shittu
    Edgar Nield, Gabrielle DeSantis Nield, Esquire, Nield Law Group, APC, Encini-tas, CA, for Defendant-Appellee S. Schae-fer
    Colin H. Walshok, Attorney, Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Ashby
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Bilal Ahdom appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int'l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahdom’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief because Ahdom failed to demonstrate that he would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief. See id. (“[A]n injunction cannot issue merely because it is possible that there will be an irreparable injury to the plaintiff; it must be likely that there will be.” (citation omitted)); Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are “substantially identical”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Ahdom’s various contentions regarding alleged perjury committed by defendant Dr. Ashby.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.