Johnston v. City and County of Honolulu

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 25-3213
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD HENRY JOHNSTON, Jr., No. 25-3213 (email: LordIRunTooYou@gmail.com), D.C. No. 1:24-cv-00442-DKW- WRP Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Richard Henry Johnston, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action alleging harassment,

false arrest, and attempted false arrest by the Honolulu Police Department. We

* 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). 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 Johnston’s motion

for a preliminary injunction because Johnston failed to establish the requirements

for such relief. See id. (explaining that a plaintiff seeking a 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).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-3213