Opinion ID: 577518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Were the district court's findings of fact clearly erroneous?

Text: 11 The district court found that Allen had made no showing of irreparable injury to justify any of the three actions he requested the court to take. Because Allen could not satisfy this requirement, the court denied injunctive relief, and did not find it necessary to address the possibility of success on the merits. 12
13 Allen complains that prison officials were late in responding to his appeal for medical care, forcing him to go to directly to the prison doctor and then to resubmit the appeal. As the district court put it, [s]tanding alone, this incident does not demonstrate that plaintiff is immediately threatened with suffering irreparable harm. This finding does not appear to be clearly erroneous.
14 Allen's complaints of harassment were sketchy at best, and he provided no factual background. The court found that Allen had shown no presently existing actual threat; [s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury. Goldie's Bookstore v. Superior Court of State of California, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir.1984). This finding does not appear to be clearly erroneous.
15 Allen was examined by a doctor on two occasions after the accident. The doctor did not find any damage or infection. Allen complains he has suffered a steady loss of hearing, and that he needs to see an ear specialist and take a hearing test. The prison doctors decided not to order a hearing test. 16 The district court found that Allen had not demonstrated a significant threat of irreparable injury if the court did not order further medical treatment. It noted Allen had already been examined twice, and observed, Plaintiff appears to be disputing the apparent decision to not provide him with a hearing exam. It was not clearly erroneous for the district court to look to the doctors' findings of no apparent injury, and find Allen had not shown irreparable injury would result if the court did not grant him relief. 17 In sum, the district court's findings that there was no showing of irreparable injury were not clearly erroneous. The decision of the district court is thus 18 AFFIRMED.