Chris O'Neill v. Robert Bannister ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS O’NEILL, No. 13-15251
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00030-LRH-
WGC
v.
JOHN PEERY, Dr.; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
**
Submitted September 9, 2013
Before: TASHIMA, M.SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Christopher O’Neill appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his
request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendant prison officials and from
*
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).
the district court’s denial of his motion to file a first amended complaint. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm in part and dismiss in
part.
Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying
preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)
(listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press
Int’l, 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining limited scope of review).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court's order denying O’Neill’s
motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Skoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469
F.3d 1221, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.
2 13-15281