KELVIN X. SINGLETON, AKA Kelvin Lewis Singleton v. Scott Kernan;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KELVIN X. SINGLETON, AKA Kelvin
Lewis Singleton,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56727
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02462-BAS-NLS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kelvin X. Singleton, aka Kelvin Lewis Singleton,
appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration of the order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. 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
JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56727
§ 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Singleton’s motion
for reconsideration because Singleton failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
See id. at 1263 (grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)); see also Jackson v.
City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (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 do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Singleton’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is
denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --