Kelvin Singleton v. Scott Kernan

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 13, 2018·No. 17-56727·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, AKA Kelvin No. 17-56727 Lewis Singleton, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02462-BAS-NLS Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Kelvin X. Singleton, aka Kelvin Lewis Singleton,

appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for

reconsideration of the order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* 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). § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Singleton’s motion

for reconsideration because Singleton failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.

See id. at 1263 (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)); see also Jackson v.

City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (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).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

Singleton’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is

denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

2 17-56727

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, AKA Kelvin No. 17-56727 Lewis Singleton, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02462-BAS-NLS Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Kelvin X. Singleton, aka Kelvin Lewis Singleton,

appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for

reconsideration of the order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* 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). § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Singleton’s motion

for reconsideration because Singleton failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.

See id. at 1263 (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)); see also Jackson v.

City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (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).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

Singleton’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is

denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

2 17-56727

Kelvin Singleton v. Scott Kernan, (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Kelvin Singleton v. Scott Kernan (Kelvin Singleton v. Scott Kernan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Espanola Jackson v. City and County of San Francis

746 F.3d 953 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)