Case Name: Mark A. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David EVERETT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-20
Citations: 683 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 16-16745
Parties: Mark A. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David EVERETT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
Mark A. MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David EVERETT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16745
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 20, 2017
Mark A. Miller, Pro Se
D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Mark A. Miller appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an abuse of discretion. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Humble, 753 F.3d 905, 911 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Miller's request for in-junctive relief after concluding that, on the record before it, Miller did not establish a likelihood that he would succeed on his medical deliberate indifference claim. See Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc., 753 F.3d at 911 (plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish, among other things, that he is likely to succeed on the merits); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion regarding the course of treatment is not sufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
Miller was not entitled to injunctive relief regarding his retaliation claim because, on the record presented to the district court, he did not establish a likelihood that he would succeed on that claim. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of retaliation claim in prison context).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This Disposition Is Not Appropriate for Publication and Is Not Precedent Except as Provided By Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.