Cheteni v. California Department of Education
This text of Cheteni v. California Department of Education (Cheteni v. California Department of Education) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREEDOM CHETENI, No. 25-775 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-06286-SI Petitioner - Appellant,
and MEMORANDUM*
THE VR SCHOOL, a California non-profit corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, a California state agency; MALIA VELLA, in her official capacity as Deputy Superintendent; CARRIE LOPES, In his official capacity as Division Director,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2025**
* 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). Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Freedom Cheteni appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for a preliminary injunction in his action alleging federal claims arising out
of the suspension of funding for The VR School, a private school Cheteni operates.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of
discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052
(9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheteni’s motion
for a preliminary injunction because Cheteni failed to establish the requirements
for such relief. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that
he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is 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); see also Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v.
Mortimer Howard Tr., 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that mandatory
injunctions are not generally granted “unless extreme or very serious damage will
result” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Cheteni’s motion (Docket Entry No. 14) for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 25-775
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cheteni v. California Department of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheteni-v-california-department-of-education-ca9-2025.