Sternberg v. Warneck

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-7206
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL C. STERNBERG, No. 24-7206 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01466-APG-EJY Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

SHELLEY WARNECK; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JEFF ROSEN; et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Michael C. Sternberg appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

* 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). his motions for a preliminary injunction in his action alleging federal and state law

claims arising out of state child custody proceedings. 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 Sternberg’s motions

for a preliminary injunction because Sternberg 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).

We do not consider Sternberg’s contentions regarding the merits of his

underlying complaint or the district court’s orders partially granting motions to

dismiss because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal.

The motion (Docket Entry No. 17) to strike a portion of the opening brief is

denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-7206