April 11, 2011
JEAN MILLER, PLAINTIFF,
ALLAN R. GRIFFITH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Presently before the court are plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction. (Docs. #14, #22). The defendants have not responded.
On February 24, 2011, (doc. #16) and again on March 7, 2011, (doc. #23) this court denied plaintiff's motions for temporary restraining order (docs. #12, #21). In considering whether to grant those motions, the court applied the same standard used now to determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) possibility of irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) balance of equities; and (4) advancement of the public interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374--76 (2008).
Plaintiff has presented to the court no new facts or law upon which the court may reconsider its determination that plaintiff has not met this burden. See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.");FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Thus, applying the rationale from the previous orders (docs. #16, #23), the court declines to issue a preliminary injunction in this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction (docs. #14, #22) are hereby DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2014 VersusLaw Inc.