UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID CIEMPA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JUSTIN JONES; LEO BROWN, Defendants-Appellees,

and DICK BARTLEY; AL BLAIR; RICK BOYETT; WALTER DINWIDDIE; JAMES CAVE; JOHN DOE, sued as “Unknown Employee”; DEBBIE L. MORTON; KAMERON HARVANEK; G. MCCLARY; CURTIS HOOD; CHRIS REDEAGLE,

Defendants. No. 11-5127 (D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00685-CVE-TLW) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TYMKOVICH , BALDOCK , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the de termination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 23, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - Pro se prisoner David Ciempa interlocut orily appeals from the district court’s order denying his “Second Motion to Reasse rt Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a )(1), and we AFFIRM. Background Ciempa is currently incarcerated by th e Oklahoma Department of Corrections. In 2008, he sued various De partment personnel in federal court, alleging that he was

a member of “The Nation of Gods and Earths” (NGE) and that his religious freedoms were being violated. 1 In July 2009, Ciempa filed a moti on for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, arguing that he was being deni ed (1) access to the prison chapel; (2) the opportunity to buy “mandate d pork- or pork by-product-free hygienic products”; (3) a Halal di et; and (4) access to “the religious periodical The Five

Percenter .” R. at 97-98. The district court denied the motion, noting that Ciempa had not served the motion on any defendant, and he had not demonstrated why notice

should be waived.

1 According to Ciempa, NGE “traces its roots to the Black Muslim movement that emerged in the midtweni eth [sic] century and most di rectky [sic] to the Nation of Islam.” R. at 577. Accord ing to NGE literature, the white race is equated with the “Devil.” Id. at 711. “The NGE has been designa ted as a prison security threat group in Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolin a, South Carolina, and Virginia.” Id. at 591 n.5 (citations omitted).- 3 - In December 2009, Ciempa filed a “Motion to Reassert His Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” Id. at 576. The district court, in August 2010, construed the motion as a second request fo r a preliminary injunction, and denied it on the merits, stating that “[t]he potential risk to prison safety that the requested injunction would create greatly outweighs the risk of ha rm to Ciempa,” and that it would not “second-guess prison officials’ reasonable determinations regarding prison safety without a fully developed record.” Id. at 642-43. Ciempa a ppealed to this court (No. 10-5120), where the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Back in the district court, in Augus t 2011, Ciempa filed a “Second Motion to Reassert Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” See id. at 1287. The court denied the motion, “find[ing] no clear e rror in the prior ruling, nor any other basis warranting

reconsideration of the issues.” Id. at 1289. This appeal followed. 2

Discussion “To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a

likelihood of success on the me rits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absenc e of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest.” Att’y Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 565 F.3d 769, 776 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotation

2 Ciempa concedes that his opening brief does not challenge any of the district court’s orders concerning the provision of pork products a nd a Halal diet. Reply Br. at 6. While he does appear to raise those matters in his reply brief, “[w]e decline to consider arguments rais ed for the first time in a reply brief.” Lauck v. Campbell Cnty. , 627 F.3d 805, 810 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).- 4 - omitted). Our review of an order denying pr eliminary injunctive re lief is only for an

abuse of discretion. Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City , 348 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2003). And in this case, our review is doubly deferential, as we are not simply reviewing an order denying preliminary inj unctive relief; but rather, we are reviewing an order denying reconsideration of an or der denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Jennings v. Rivers , 394 F.3d 850, 854 (10th Cir. 2005) (observing that orders denying reconsideration are review ed for an abuse of discretion). After reviewing the record and the briefs , we conclude that the district court’s decision was not “arbitrary, capricious, whim sical, or manifestly unreasonable” so as

to constitute an abuse of discretion. Att’y Gen. of Okla. , 565 F.3d at 776 (quotations omitted). Ciempa has failed to establish to any degree th at the balance of hardships and the public interest weighed in his favor. Indeed, on appeal, Ciempa cites evidence that supports the district court’ s decision. He notes that in 2007, a Department chaplain author ed an email stating that NGE adherents would not be given time on a religious-servi ces schedule because of the group’s racist beliefs.

Such beliefs are relevant to whether the requested injunction might pose a “potential risk to prison safety.” R. at 642. Clea rly, jeopardizing pris on safety constitutes injury to the Department and is adverse to the public interest - the third and fourth preliminary-injunction factor s. Ciempa has not shown that the district court- 5 - improperly weighed these factor s, let alone that the cour t abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. 3

Conclusion The judgment of the dist rict court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge

3 Appellees state in thei r response brief that the De partment has begun allowing Ciempa time in the prison chap el. Consequently, at least pa rt of this appeal may be moot, in addition to meritless.