Court Opinion

ID: 9408154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 18:01:31.888191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.083555
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN KENNEDY,                                  No. 22-15465

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01358-RFB-DJA

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SHELLY WILLIAMS; BARBARA
CEGAVSKE; WILLIAM GITTERE,
Warden; TIMOTHY FILSON; HOMAN;
DUGGAN; MINGO; CALVIN JOHNSON;
MUREDA,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                 Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Nevada state prisoner Kevin Kennedy appeals pro se from the district court’s

order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
action alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City &

County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kennedy’s request

for preliminary injunctive relief related to his access-to-courts claim because

Kennedy failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to

succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in

the public interest); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996)

(elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); Hebbe v.

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are

construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a

plausible claim for relief).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-15465