Larry William Cortinas v. N. Ikegbu; N. Osman; B. Haile; S. Gates; T. Patterson; Special Appearance

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
N. IKEGBU; N. OSMAN; B. HAILE; S.
GATES; T. PATTERSON; SPECIAL
APPEARANCE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 23-1670
D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00285-TLN-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Larry William Cortinas appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
* 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 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-1670
and other constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v.
City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cortinas’s motions
for a preliminary injunction related to his medical deliberate indifference claim
because Cortinas failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
claim. 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 Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference is a “high legal
standard” requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an
inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We reject as without merit Cortinas’s contention that the district court was
required to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Cortinas’s motion for a
preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --