122 F3d 1071 Hymes v. Tk Bridges Steven Cambra Jr James Gomez Cheryl Bolles

122 F.3d 1071

Scanvinski J. HYMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
T.K. BRIDGES, Correctional Officer; STEVEN CAMBRA, JR.,
Warden; JAMES GOMEZ, Director Department of Corrections;
CHERYL BOLLES; DAVID CARMICHAEL, Lt.; DIANA CRANDALL, Lt.;
MATTHEW BUECHNER, Sgt.; DAVID SKERIK, Sgt.; PATRICK
SMITH, Sgt.; MARK YAX, Sgt.; WILLIAM WITT, Correctional
Officer; KANDI CAIN, Correctional Officer; DOUGLAS
BURRELL, Correctional Officer; TERRY SCOTT; DAVID
HEGELMEYER; MARIE DOWNARD, Correctional Officer, TIMOTHY
BIGSBY, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-15638.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 25, 1997.**
Filed Aug. 28, 1997.

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.


Advertisement
view counter
1

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding.

2

Before SCHROEDER, FERNANDEZ and RYMER, Circuit Judges

3

MEMORANDUM*

4

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

5

Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court has abused its discretion by denying the preliminary injunction or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. See Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996).

6

The record before us shows that the district court did not rely upon an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion by concluding that appellant's showing of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury was insufficient to warrant the preliminary injunctive relief. See id.; see also Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir.1982) (stating legal standards governing issuance of preliminary injunction). Neither are the court's factual findings clearly erroneous. See Chandler, 83 F.3d at 1152.

7

The court also rejects appellant's arguments concerning the district: court's evidentiary rulings.


Advertisement
view counter
8

Accordingly, the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir. R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3