Case Name: Fred Jay OTTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-10
Citations: 540 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 12-56438
Parties: Fred Jay OTTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 590–590

Head Matter:
Fred Jay OTTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-56438.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2013.
Filed Sept. 10, 2013.
Fred Jay Otto, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Anoiel Khorshid, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: TASHIMA, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, 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
Plaintiff Fred Otto appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendant prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.