Case Name: Garrison S. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-05
Citations: 298 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 08-15745
Parties: Garrison S. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Garrison S. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.J. SULLIVAN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-15745.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 5, 2008.
Garrison S. Johnson, Tehachapi, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jeffrey Steele, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General (SAC), Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This appeal from the district court's order denying appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunction relief. See Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir.1995). We conclude that the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant had failed to demonstrate the threat of imminent irreparable harm and in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See id. In addition, we conclude that the district court's findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying the preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.