22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T417,MEMORANDUM Prison Legal News appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for a permanent injunction against the defendants, who operate the Pinal County Jail. Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1) and we review for abuse of discretion. Cummings v. Connell, 316 F.3d 886, 897 (9th Cir.2003). Finding none, we affirm. “Perhaps the most significant single component in the judicial decision whether' to exercise equity jurisdiction and grant permanent injunctive relief is the court’s discretion.” Charles Alan Wright et al., 11A Fed. Pract. & Proc. § 2942 & n. 3 (2d ed.2013) (collecting cases). Here, the district court took the extraordinarily cautious step of seeking additional briefing and evidence on the motion before concluding that a permanent injunction was unnecessary. In light this attention and the extraordinary deference we must show, we cannot find an abuse of discretion here. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.24:T444,

MEMORANDUM

Prison Legal News appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for a permanent injunction against the defendants, who operate the Pinal County Jail. Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1) and we review for abuse of discretion. Cummings v. Connell, 316 F.3d 886, 897 (9th Cir.2003). Finding none, we affirm.

“Perhaps the most significant single component in the judicial decision whether' to exercise equity jurisdiction and grant permanent injunctive relief is the court’s discretion.” Charles Alan Wright et al., 11A Fed. Pract. & Proc. § 2942 & n. 3 (2d ed.2013) (collecting cases). Here, the district court took the extraordinarily cautious step of seeking additional briefing and evidence on the motion before concluding that a permanent injunction was unnecessary. In light this attention and the extraordinary deference we must show, we cannot find an abuse of discretion here.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.