All States › Evidence
Neutral Court Opinion May 12, 2026

Sternberg v. Hendrickson

── Sternberg v. Hendrickson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL C. STERNBERG, No. 25-7440 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-04271-AMO Plaintiff - Appellant, and MEMORANDUM* E. W., N. W., Plaintiffs, v. Judge CINDY HENDRICKSON; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Araceli Martinez-Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Michael C. Sternberg appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying * 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). his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state child custody proceedings. 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 Sternberg’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Sternberg failed to establish the requirements for such relief. 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). We do not consider Sternberg’s contentions regarding the merits of his underlying complaint or the district court’s orders granting motions to dismiss because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal. The motion (Docket Entry No. 23) to file multiple reply briefs is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 25-7440
CourtListener · May 11, 2026
Original link
Share on X Share on Facebook
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own address as its source and its own type. #}