United States v. 2020-11-17 | 20-16378 | MARCUS RUSSELL V. J. SCOTT | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCUS DAVID RUSSELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

J. SCOTT; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 20-16378

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05012-SPL-CDB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Marcus David Russell appeals pro se from the district

*
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

NOV 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-16378
court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (“RLUIPA”). 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 Russell’s motion
for a preliminary injunction because Russell 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); see also Walker v.
Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1134-37 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of RLUIPA claim);
Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of free
exercise claim).
We reject as without merit Russell’s contention that the district court
improperly excluded the declarations attached to his motion for a preliminary
injunction.
AFFIRMED.