CORTINAS V. IKEGBU, ET AL., No. 23-1670 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-1670 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00285-TLN-CKD MEMORANDUM* v. N. IKEGBU; N. OSMAN; B. HAILE; S. GATES; T. PATTERSON; SPECIAL APPEARANCE, Defendants - Appellees. 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). 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 23-1670
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
