Court Opinion

ID: 4656021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-29 21:00:43.206401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:31.077952
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 29 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE CONWAY WOOD,                              No. 20-35892

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00362-SB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SUE WASHBURN, Superintendent of
Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
("EOCI"), in her individual and official
capacities; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                Stacie F. Beckerman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                           Submitted January 20, 2021***

Before:      McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Oregon state prisoner Lance Conway Wood appeals pro se from the district

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
      ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. 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 Wood’s motion for

a preliminary injunction because Wood failed to establish that he was likely to

suffer irreparable harm. See Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1022

(9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable

injury sufficient [to obtain a preliminary injunction]”).

      We reject as without merit Wood’s contention that the district court was

required to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Wood’s motion for a preliminary

injunction.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                   20-35892