Thomas Winfrey v. Matthew Cate , 361 F. App'x 778 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS DEAN WINFREY, No. 09-56101
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-CV-07096-GHK-
RNB
v.
MATTHEW CATE; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
**
Submitted December 15, 2009
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This pro se appeal from the district court's order denying appellant’s motion
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory
for a 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.
Appellant, a California state prisoner, sought injunctive relief allowing the
Odinist/Asatru faith group to meet and worship weekly in the prison chapel where
the prison authorities allow the group to use the chapel for only 1 ½ hours per
month.
We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunction
relief. See Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009). Obtaining a
preliminary injunction "requires a party to demonstrate 'that he is likely to succeed
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.'" Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct.
365, 374 (2008)). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in concluding that appellant failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success as to his
claims of violations of his rights under the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal
Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,
jlf/Inventory 2 09-56101
and in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court's order denying the preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
jlf/Inventory 3 09-56101