IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60839

PRO-LIFE MISSISSIPPI; DANA CHISHOLM; ESTER MANN; JOHN 

BREKEEN; LAURA DURAN; DOUG LANE; RONALD NEDERHOED; 

BERKELEY OSTRANDER; CALVIN ZASTROW, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

LINDSAY HORTON, Individually and in his official capacity as Chief of 

Police for the City of Jackson, Mississippi; JESSE ROBINSON, Individually 

and in his official capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi 

Police Department; JAMES MCGOWAN, Individually and in his official 

capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; 

MARY JAMES, Individually and in her official capacity as an Officer for the 

City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; MARIE HAMPTON, 

Individually and in her official capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, 

Mississippi Police Department; JAMES ROSS, Individually and in his official 

capacity as an Officer for the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; 

WILLIS THOMAS, Individually and in his official capacity as an Officer for 

the City of Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; UNKNOWN OFFICERS 

1-10, Individually and in their official capacity as an Officers for the City of 

Jackson, Mississippi Police Department; CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:14-CV-568

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60839 Document: 00513327715 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2016
No. 14-60839

2

PER CURIAM:*

We have reviewed the briefs and the record. The parties have fully 

argued the case before us. We are satisfied that the district court neither 

abused its discretion nor clearly erred in concluding that the plaintiffs have

not satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction. Entitlement to a 

preliminary injunction requires that the plaintiffs must show four factors: 

likelihood of success on the merits; “irreparable injury if the injunction is not 

granted; that the irreparable injury outweighs any harm to the other side; and 

that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” 

Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank, 805 F.3d 573, 579 (5th Cir. 2015). The district 

court, after a five-day hearing, found that the plaintiffs had not shown that 

they are likely to prevail on the merits of their underlying § 1983 claims. The 

plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for injunctive relief turn on a fact-intensive inquiry

and credibility assessments. We review a district court’s factual and credibility 

determinations with great deference. United States v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 

753 (5th Cir. 1999). This appeal is no exception. Thus, we hold that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs had not 

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. We emphasize that we 

have reached no opinion whatsoever on the ultimate merits of the case. 

The district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED. 

We return the case to the district court for such further proceedings as are 

appropriate. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 14-60839 Document: 00513327715 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2016