
    Jess R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. GRONSETH, CBCC Law Librarian; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-35156
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Jess R. Smith, Pro Se
    Marko Luka Pavela, State Attorney General’s Office — Corrections Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    
      Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Jess R. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an abuse of discretion, Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief because Smith failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims and that absent such relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (setting forth standards for issuance of preliminary injunction); Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that mandatory injunctions are not generally granted unless “extreme or very serious damage will result” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 352-54, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injuiy requirement).

The district court properly determined that Smith’s allegations regarding the denial of access to legal supplies and to his legal materials are outside the scope of his motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

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