Skip to main content

WILKINS v. Christine Escobar; Special Appearance, Defendants. (2021)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Keenan G. WILKINS, aka Nerrah Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARBER, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Christine Escobar; Special Appearance, Defendants.

No. 21-15361

Decided: June 30, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Keenan G. Wilkins, Pro Se Edgar Nield, Gabrielle DeSantis Nield, Esquire, Nield Law Group, Encinitas, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Barber David Edward Kuchinsky, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees R. Recarey, Anise Adams, Monsour, R. Singh, S. Gates, Ahmid Dredar


California state prisoner Keenan G. Wilkins 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. 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 Wilkins's motion for a preliminary injunction because Wilkins failed to demonstrate that such relief is warranted. 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).

Wilkins's motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 7 and 15) are denied.


Copied to clipboard