Court Opinion

ID: 9381005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 19:00:49.499805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.985578
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUNG DANG,                                      No. 22-35834

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05544-RJB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MARK JOHNSON, MQAC member; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

KIMBERLY MOORE, M.D.; et al.,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                    Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Hung Dang appeals pro se from the district court’s interlocutory order

      *
             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).
denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

challenging the Washington Medical Commission’s issuance of an amended final

order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an

abuse of discretion. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211, 1216-17 (9th

Cir. 2017). We affirm.

      The district court did not err in denying Dang’s motion for a preliminary

injunction because Dang did not show that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in

the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or

that an injunction is in the public interest. See id. (stating requirements for

injunctive relief)1 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

      AFFIRMED.

1
 We express no opinion on the district court’s conclusion that Dang failed to
demonstrate that he was likely to succeed on the merits or that there were serious
questions going to the merits of his claims.

                                           2                                      22-35834