N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSEPH PATRIC K C UVIELLO,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C ITY OF B ELM ONT; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 23-16135 D.C . No. 3:23-c v-00029-LB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia La ure l D. B e e le r, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 16, 2024 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, C ALLAHAN, a nd SANC HEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Joseph Patric k C uvie l lo a ppe a ls thedistric t

c o urt’ s de n ia l of his m o tion for a

pre l im ina

ry injunc tion on his se c tion 1983 re ta lia tion c la im a ga inst De fe nda

nt-Appe l le e B rigitteShe are r, the he a d of the C ity of B e lm ont’ s 

# F IL ED MAY20 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Parks a

n d R e c re ation Depa

rtm e nt. The distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion ove r C uvie llo’ s re ta l i ation c l a im unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1331, a nd we hav e jurisdic tion to re vie w the de nia l of a

pre lim i na

ry injunc tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1292. W e re vie w the d e nia l of a

pre lim ina

ry injunc t ion for a

n a b use of disc re tion. All. for the W ild Roc k ie s v . C ottre ll , 632 F.3d. 1127, 1131 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting Lands C ounc il v . Mc N air , 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba n c )). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a

pre l im ina

ry injunc tion on C uvie llo’ s First Am e n dm e nt re ta lia tion c la im , a

nd we dism iss there m a inde r of his a ppe a l. 1 B e c a

u s e the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with the fa c tua l a

nd proc e dura l history

of the c a s e , we ne e d not re c o unt it here . To pre va i l on his pre lim ina ry injunc tion m otion for his re ta lia t ion c la im a ga inst She are r, it wa s C uvie l lo’ s burde n to m a ke a c le a r showing “ [1] that

he is like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits, [2] tha t he is like ly

to suffe r irre pa

ra ble ha rm in the

1 C uvie l lo a sks us to re vie w the de nia l of a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion on his othe r dism isse d

c l a im s. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l did not a djudic ate a ll c la im s, a nd ga ve C uvie llo le ave to a

m e nd his c om

p la int, we do not ha

ve jurisdic tion to re v ie w the unde rly ing pa rtia l dismissa l. Fe d. R . C iv. Pro. 54(b) (orde rs tha

t “ a djudic ate [] fe we r tha

n a ll thec la im s ” are not fina l, a ppe a la ble de c isions); 28 U.S.C . § 1291; W MX Te c h., Inc . v . Mille r , 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba

nc ). As C uvie llo’ s c la i m s sta nd dismisse d, we (and the distric t c ourt) la c k the e quita

ble powe rs to issue an injunc tion ba se d on c l a im s no longer in the c om pla i nt. LA All. For Human Rights v . C ty . of Los Ange le

s , 14 F.4th 947, 956 (9th C ir. 2021). 2a

bse nc e of pre lim i na

ry re l ie f, [3] tha

t the ba la nc e of e quitie s tips in his fa vor, a nd [4] tha t a n injunc tion is in the

public inte re st.” Pore tti v . Dzure nda , 11 F.4th 1037, 1047 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting W inte r v . N at. Re s . De f. C ounc il, Inc . , 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)); Mazurek

v . Armstrong , 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). B e c a use “ [l] ike lihood of suc c e ss on them e rits is ‘ the m ost im porta nt’ fa c tor; if a

m ova nt fa ils to m e e t this ‘ thre s hold inquiry ,’ we ne e d not c onside r the othe r fa c tors.” C alifornia v. Azar , 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Disne y Ente rs., Inc . v . VidAnge l, Inc . , 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th C ir. 2017)). C uvie llo a

rgue s tha t be c a use his re ta lia

t ion c la im survive d dismissa l a

nd the distric t c o urt de te rm ine d he e sta blishe d a prim a fa c i e c a se of re ta l iation, it follows that he is like ly

to suc c e e d on them e rits of his c la im . B ut the sta nda rd for a m otion to dism

iss— whe the r C uvie llo’ s c om

pla int c onta i ns “ suf

fic ie nt fa c tua l m atte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to ‘ sta te a c la im to re lie f that is pla

usibleon its fa c e ’ ”

— is not a “proba b ility re quire m e nt” akin to thepre lim ina ry injunc tion sta

nda rd. Ashc r oft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 663, 678 (2009) (quoting Be ll Atl. C orp. v . T w ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 557, 570 (2007)). The distric t c ourt found C uvie l lo ne e d only m ake “ a m inim a l thre shold showing of reta lia tion” for a

prim a fa c ie c a se , not a showing tha

t he wa s like ly

to suc c e e d

on tha t re ta lia tion c la im . Se eEme ldi v

. Univ . of Or e gon , 698 F .3d 715, 724 (9th C ir . 2012) (disc ussing a na logous 3re ta lia

tion sta nda rd in T itle IX c onte xt). B e c a use the se sta

n d ards a re not c oe xte nsive , C uvie llo’ s suc c e ss on a m o tion to dism

iss doe s not c le arly

e sta blish that he is like ly

to suc c e e d on them e rits of his c la im . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing them otion for a pre l im ina ry injunc tion. C uvie llo fa ile d to m ake a c le a r showing tha

t the C ity ’ s de sire to c hill his spe e c h wa s the “ but-for” c a use of the pa

use on his volunte e r a c tivitie s, a s re quire d for a First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

t ion c la im . N

i e v e s v . Bartle tt , 139 S. C t. 1715, 1722 (2019). The distric t c ourt fa irly

c re dite d She are r’ s de c la ration tha t s he stoppe d a c tivitie s for the W at e rdog Tra ilke e pe rs a s we ll a s C uvie llo’ s group, theFrie n ds of W ate rdog, to a lign both groups’ inva sive spe c ie s re m ova l with be s t pra c tic e s in ope n spa c e m ana ge m e nt. B e c a use C uvie llo c annot c le arly e sta blish a like lihood of suc c e ss on them e rits, we do not re a c h the re m a ining e le m e nts. Thedistric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing C uvie llo a pre l im ina ry injunc tion. AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

4