Johnny Lee Jones Iii v. BARTH, Sgt.; HOWARD, Officer; COSBY, Officer; THOMPSON, Officer; WARREN JOHNSON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY LEE JONES III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BARTH, Sgt.; HOWARD, Officer; COSBY,
Officer; THOMPSON, Officer; WARREN
JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15205
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00028-MMD-
CSD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Johnny Lee Jones III 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 First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We
* 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
JUN 1 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15205
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 Jones’s motion for
a preliminary injunction because Jones 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).
Jones’s motion to expedite (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied as moot.
Jones’s request to certify a constitutional question to the attorney general
(Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --