Public-domain · open source

172 F. App'x 712

Johnson v. Vail

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided February 24, 2006

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2006-02-24

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Gregorio T., by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem Jose T. Xiomara T. Maria R. Carlos P., by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem Ana P., and California Association of Catholic Hospitals City of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. Pete Wilson, Governor, of the State of California Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, for the State of California Kimberly Belshe, Director, of the Department of Health Services for the State of California Eloise Anderson, Director, of the Department of Social Services for the State of California, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Pete Wilson, Governor, of the State of California Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, for the State of California Kimberly Belshe, Director, of the Department of Health Services for the State of California Eloise Anderson, Director, of the Department of Social Services for the State of California, and Orange Unified School District San Diego Unified School District William D. Dawson, Acting Superintendent of Public Instruction, for the State of California, Barbara Ayala, a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem, Andrea Ayala v. Pete Wilson, Governor, of the State of California Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, for the State of California Kimberly Belshe, Director, of the Department of Health Services for the State of California Eloise Anderson, Director, of the Department of Social Services for the State of California, and Alhambra Unified School District, Children Who Want an Education, Who Are Undocumented in America, Who Will Be Adversely Affected by California Proposition 187 v. Pete Wilson, Governor, of the State of California Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, for the State of California Kimberly Belshe, Director, of the Department of Health Services for the State of California Eloise Anderson, Director, of the Department of Social Services for the State of California, and Los Angeles Unified School District

Decided 2006-02-24

¶1MEMORANDUM …

¶2This appeal from the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion for preliminary injunction 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.

¶3We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir.1995). The record before us shows that the court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or the threat of imminent irreparable harm and in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See id. The court’s factual findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, the court’s order de*713nying the preliminary injunction is affirmed. All pending motions are denied as moot.

¶4AFFIRMED.

¶5 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.