Case Name: CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-24
Citations: 91 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 03-57013
Parties: CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-57013.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2004.
Decided March 24, 2004.
James A. Hayes, Jr., Esq., Ashworth, Hayes & Moran, Laguna Niguel, CA, Robert J. Muise, Esq., Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Gary N. Miller, Esq., Jennifer A.D. Lehman, Esq., Lloyd D. Pellman, Esq., Office of the County Counsel, John W. Allen, Esq., Gary R. Gibeaut, Esq., Gibeaut Mahan & Briscoe, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. and Center volunteers Paul Kulas and Thomas Padberg (collectively the "Center") appeal the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction in the Center's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, County Sheriffs and County school officials seeking to enjoin their enforcement of California Penal Code § 626.8 against the Center. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The appeal comes to this panel pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 3-3.
Our review of an order denying a preliminary injunction is "limited and deferential," Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Center failed to demonstrate sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, and that the balance of hardships did not tip in the Center's favor, see id. at 917-18. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.
Appellants' unopposed motion to file excerpts of record containing a physical exhibit is granted. Appellants' request for oral argument is denied.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.