RUSSELL v. Charles L. Ryan; et al., Defendants. (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Marcus David Russell appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Russell's motion for a preliminary injunction because Russell failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. 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); see also Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of free exercise claim); Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1134-37 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of RLUIPA claim).

AFFIRMED.