Case Name: Frank E. SISNEROZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill WHITMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-30
Citations: 372 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 08-17634
Parties: Frank E. SISNEROZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill WHITMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
Frank E. SISNEROZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill WHITMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-17634.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 30, 2010.
Frank E. Sisneroz, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Kathleen A. Taylor, Deputy County Counsel, Tulare County Counsel, Visalia, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Frank E. Sisneroz, a California civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his request for in-junctive relief in connection with the conditions of confinement at Tulare County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying injunctive relief because Sisneroz failed to allege facts demonstrating a likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury, despite receiving instruction on how to meet the requirements and being given two opportunities to do so. See Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir.2001) ("In general, injunctive relief is to be used sparingly, and only in a clear and plain case.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Sisneroz's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Sisneroz's request for judicial notice of his indigency is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.