ALGHUSAIN v. NEMETH (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Ameer ALGHUSAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jason L. NEMETH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15110

Decided: April 29, 2021

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Ameer Alghusain, Pro Se John W. Shaw, Attorney, Shaw Koepke & Satter, Torrance, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Jason L. Nemeth, Joseph L. Nemeth III Klevis Bakiaj, Attorney, James B. Niehaus, Esquire, Attorney, Frantz Ward LLP, Cleveland, OH, Kevin P. Dwight, Esquire, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Vinod K. Gupta, Nita Gupta Michael S. Burke, Attorney, Vogl Meredith Burke LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee John Dearborn Gabe Wright, Esquire, Attorney, Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Ratanjit Sondhe Ann Yackshaw, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for Defendants-Appellees Ohio Ethics Commission, Ohio Department of Higher Education Zenobia Bivens, Frost Brown Todd, LLC, Dallas, TX, John W. Shaw, Attorney, Shaw Koepke & Satter, Torrance, CA, for Defendant-Appellee IGW Solutions LLC, Gexpro Rexel USA, Inc. Laura Flynn, Attorney, Murchison & Cumming, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs LLC Ndubisi A. Ezeolu, Tucker Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Chelsea R. Mikula, Attorney, Tucker Ellis LLP, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellee Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission Brian Kent Brookey, Attorney, Rachael Leigh Rodman, Attorney, Ulmer & Berne, LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendant-Appellee Edison Welding Institute

MEMORANDUM **

Ameer Alghusain appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of injuries Alghusain sustained in Ohio. 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 Alghusain's motion for a preliminary injunction because Alghusain 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).

We reject as without merit Alghusain's contentions that the district court was required to grant his motion because it was unopposed and that the district court should have granted Alghusain an opportunity to file an amended motion.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law