McCullough v. Arthur
This text of 94 F. App'x 653 (McCullough v. Arthur) 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
MEMORANDUM
Principal Jeffrey Cornejo appeals the district court’s order granting the motion of Dan McCullough and others (“Plaintiffs”) for a preliminary injunction in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, enjoining Cornejo from arresting, or otherwise interfering with, Plaintiffs for holding signs, distributing literature and discussing abortion with students on a sidewalk adjacent to Millikan High School. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The appeal comes to this panel pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 3-3.
Our review of an order granting a preliminary injunction is “limited and deferential,” Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, see id. at 917-18, and irreparable harm. Accordingly, we affirm the district [654]*654court’s order.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
94 F. App'x 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-arthur-ca9-2004.