Casey v. Ashcroft

10 F. App'x 518
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 21, 2001
DocketNo. 01-15149; D.C. No. CV-00-2581-FCD
StatusPublished

This text of 10 F. App'x 518 (Casey v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Casey v. Ashcroft, 10 F. App'x 518 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to use for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction or based its [519]*519decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996).

The record before us shows that the district court did not rely upon an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant’s showing of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury was insufficient to warrant the preliminary injunctive relief. Id.; see also Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press, Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir.1982) (stating legal standards governing issuance of preliminary injunction). Moreover, the district court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous. Chandler, 83 F.3d at 1152.

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 F. App'x 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-v-ashcroft-ca9-2001.