Case Name: Richard C. SPRUEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dan WILLIAMS; Sandra Carter; Donald Duncan, in his individual and official capacity; Harold Clarke, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-14
Citations: 207 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 06-35469
Parties: Richard C. SPRUEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dan WILLIAMS; Sandra Carter; Donald Duncan, in his individual and official capacity; Harold Clarke, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
Richard C. SPRUEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dan WILLIAMS; Sandra Carter; Donald Duncan, in his individual and official capacity; Harold Clarke, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-35469.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
Filed Nov. 14, 2006.
Richard C. Spruel, Jr., Clallam Bay, WA, pro se.
Brian G. Maxey, Esq., Office of the Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Richard C. Spruel, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. Spruel, a Shi'a Muslim, contends that the district court erred in refusing to order the defendants to provide a Halal diet containing Halal meat, rather than a diet of ovo-lacto vegetarian meals, pending disposition of the action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Spinel had not established that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim and would be irreparably harmed absent the court's intervention, nor had he raised serious questions and shown that the balance of hardships tipped in his favor. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 993-95 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.