Court Opinion

ID: 9901963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 19:00:51.596001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.160500
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,                         No. 23-1670
                                                D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00285-TLN-CKD
             Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

N. IKEGBU; N. OSMAN; B. HAILE; S.
GATES; T. PATTERSON; SPECIAL
APPEARANCE,

             Defendants - Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Larry William Cortinas appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs

      *
             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).
and other constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v.

City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cortinas’s motions

for a preliminary injunction related to his medical deliberate indifference claim

because Cortinas 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 Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference is a “high legal

standard” requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an

inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion

concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

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

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

preliminary injunction.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    23-1670