Case Name: Karen Y. KIRBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr. and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-19
Citations: 529 F. App'x 828
Docket Number: No. 13-15281
Parties: Karen Y. KIRBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr. and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 828–828

Head Matter:
Karen Y. KIRBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr. and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15281.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 17, 2013.
Filed June 19, 2013.
Karen Y. Kirby, Aptos, CA, pro se.
Matthew W. Kubicek, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS, GOULD and WATFORD, 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 Karen Kirby appeals pro se the district court's denial of her request for preliminary injunctive relief. 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.