ALGHUSAIN v. NEMETH (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-29No. No. 21-15110

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, concluding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion because Alghusain failed to establish a likely success on the merits of his claims.

Alghusain appealed a district court's denial of his request for a preliminary injunction in a civil rights lawsuit under federal law stemming from injuries he suffered in Ohio. The appellate court reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion and found that the district court properly rejected the injunction request because Alghusain did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying claims. The court also rejected Alghusain's arguments that the injunction should have been granted simply because no opposing party filed a response, and that he deserved a chance to submit a revised motion.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction
Whether a plaintiff established likelihood of success on the merits
Whether an unopposed motion requires automatic approval
Whether a plaintiff has a right to file an amended injunction motion

Procedural posture

Alghusain appealed pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his section 1983 civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Ameer Alghusain appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of injuries Alghusain sustained in Ohio. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alghusains motion for a preliminary injunction because Alghusain failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest).

We reject as without merit Alghusains contentions that the district court was required to grant his motion because it was unopposed and that the district court should have granted Alghusain an opportunity to file an amended motion.

AFFIRMED.