PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul R. BABEU, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Pi-nal County, Arizona; Pinal County, Arizona; Tonya Delgado, Sgt., in her individual and official capacities; Alyssa Romero; Laurenda Hensley-Salisberry; Cheryl McBirnie; John Johnston; Lauren McVicker, Detention Aides, in their individual capacities; Loretta Valdez; Dalton Gay; Erica Chavez; Dena Kelly, in their individual capacities; Amado Martinez, Sgt., in his individual and official capacities; Leonard Arnold, Sgt., in his individual and official capacities; David Linderholm, Training Specialist, in his individual and official capacities; Frances Hawkins, Lt., in her individual and official capacities; Dennis Rushing; Matthew Hull, Lt., in his individual and official capacities; Darren Rushing, Lt., in his individual and official capacities; Vernita Gant, Lt., in her individual and official capacities; Michele McNeely, Lt., in her individual and official capacities; Gilbert Ho-yos, Lt., in his individual and official capacities; Terry Johnson, Captain, in his individual and official capacities; Jayme Valenzuela, Captain, in his individual and official capacities; Ruben Montano, Captain, in his individual and official capacities; James Kimble, Deputy Chief, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2014-01-22No. No. 13-15965

552 F. App'x 747

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

MEMORANDUM

Prison Legal News appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for a permanent injunction against the defendants, who operate the Pinal County Jail. Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and we review for abuse of discretion. Cummings v. Connell, 316 F.3d 886, 897 (9th Cir.2003). Finding none, we affirm.

“Perhaps the most significant single component in the judicial decision whether to exercise equity jurisdiction and grant permanent injunctive relief is the court’s discretion.” Charles Alan Wright et al., 11A Fed. Pract. & Proc. § 2942 & n. 3 (2d ed.2013) (collecting cases). Here, the district court took the extraordinarily cautious step of seeking additional briefing and evidence on the motion before concluding that a permanent injunction was unnecessary. In light this attention and the extraordinary deference we must show, we cannot find an abuse of discretion here.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.