Jess Smith v. B. Gronseth , 691 F. App'x 868 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESS R. SMITH, No. 17-35156
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05775-BHS-
DWC
v.
B. GRONSETH, CBCC Law Librarian; et MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Jess R. Smith appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an
*
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).
abuse of discretion, Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d
958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for
mandatory preliminary injunctive relief because Smith failed to establish that he is
likely to succeed on the merits of his claims and that absent such relief he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008) (setting forth standards for issuance of preliminary injunction); Park Vill.
Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th
Cir. 2011) (stating that mandatory injunctions are not generally granted unless
“extreme or very serious damage will result” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 352-54 (1996) (setting
forth elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement).
The district court properly determined that Smith’s allegations regarding the
denial of access to legal supplies and to his legal materials are outside the scope of
his motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-35156