Timothy Deanore Wilkins v. Correctional Officers;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY DEANORE WILKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-56321
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-03383-VAP-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Timothy Deanore 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 federal and state law claims related to cell searches
and contamination of personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-56321
§ 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Arc of Cal. v. Douglas, 757
F.3d 975, 983 (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. at 983-84 (requiring a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction
to 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 motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --