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:T502,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Bilal Ahdom appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int'l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahdom’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief because Ahdom failed to demonstrate that he would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief. See id. (“[A]n injunction cannot issue merely because it is possible that there will be an irreparable injury to the plaintiff; it must be likely that there will be.” (citation omitted)); Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 , 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are “substantially identical”). We reject as unsupported by the record Ahdom’s various contentions regarding alleged perjury committed by defendant Dr. Ashby. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T534,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Bilal Ahdom appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int'l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahdom’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief because Ahdom failed to demonstrate that he would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief. See id. (“[A]n injunction cannot issue merely because it is possible that there will be an irreparable injury to the plaintiff; it must be likely that there will be.” (citation omitted)); Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 , 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are “substantially identical”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Ahdom’s various contentions regarding alleged perjury committed by defendant Dr. Ashby.

AFFIRMED.

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