DAVIES v. CROSSON (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Avon Davies appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Davies's motion for a preliminary injunction because Davies failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his eye-related medical issue. See 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 Davies's contentions regarding the district court's order denying reconsideration of the magistrate judge's earlier orders because that order is outside the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.