Danny Cohea v. C. Ducart ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANNY JAMES COHEA, No. 19-16783
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05399-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. E. DUCART; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Former
Governor; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Danny James Cohea appeals pro se from the district
*
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).
court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. 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 Cohea’s motion for
a preliminary injunction because Cohea failed to demonstrate that such relief is
warranted. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he
is likely to succeed on the merits, 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).
To the extent that Cohea challenges any other orders, we lack jurisdiction to
consider them in this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (court of appeals has
jurisdiction to review an interlocutory denial of injunctive relief); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (generally, court of appeals only has jurisdiction over appeals from
final decisions of the district court); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th
Cir. 1981) (absent certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an order is not
appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment is entered).
Cohea’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-16783