Opinion
No. 20-15855
07-23-2020
DAVID FLORENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. KERNAN, Secretary of CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00331-NONE-BAM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner David Florence appeals pro se from the district court's interlocutory order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's policy of requiring certain prison facilities to integrate general population inmates with special needs yard inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for abuse of discretion, Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 657 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Florence's motions for a preliminary injunction because Florence failed to establish that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm. See Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that "a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief" among other factors (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see id. (noting that "[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient" to obtain a preliminary injunction); see also Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (determining that a prisoner's claims for injunctive relief "relating to [a prison's] policies are moot" when the prisoner has been moved and "he has demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning to [the prison]").
We do not consider Florence's objection to the filing fee in this case as it is outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.