Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Pasha v. McCarthy
filed*fn*: June 21, 1991.
FAYSAL MANSOOR PASHA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
DANIEL J. MCCARTHY, ET AL., DEFENDANT-APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Milton L. Schwartz, District Judge, Presiding; D.C. No. CV-86-1075-MLS.
Beezer, Wiggins and Fernandez, Circuit Judges.
Faysal Mansoor Pasha, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and we affirm.*fn1
In his complaint, Pasha alleged numerous violations of his constitutional rights including denial of his right of access to the courts, interference with the practice of his religion, and failure to provide adequate medical care. Approximately one year after Pasha filed his second amended complaint, he sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from transferring him from Old Folsom State Prison to New Folsom State Prison. Pasha alleged that prison officials were transferring him in retaliation for his legal activities and to hinder his ability to prosecute this action. The district court denied Pasha's motion for a preliminary injunction.
We reverse a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction only where the court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology Internat'l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the district court properly applied the two alternative tests set out by this court in City of Tenakee Springs v. Block, 778 F.2d 1402, 1407 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted):
The first test requires that a court find (1) the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the injunctive relief is not granted; (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits; (3) in balancing the equities the nonmoving party will not be harmed more than the moving party is helped; and (4) granting injunctive relief is in the public interest. . . . The second test requires the moving party to demonstrate either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm; or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pasha's motion for a preliminary injunction because he failed to satisfy either of these standards for injunctive relief.
Buy This Entire Record For