listing factors for district court to consider
How later courts described this case
- listing factors for district court to consider
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEHAN ZEB MIR, MD, No. 13-55855
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-
DHB
v.
MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA; MEMORANDUM*
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 13, 2014**
Before: TROTT, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Jehan Mir appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his
*
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).
request for preliminary injunctive relief and from the denial of his motion for
reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we
affirm.
We express no view on the merits of the complaint. 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 Res. Def. Council Inc., 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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mir's motion for
reconsideration because Mir failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262–63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
2