State prisoner Cesar De La Garza brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s 1 orders denying his motions for counsel and preliminary injunctive relief in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1988 lawsuit. This appeal is timely, however, only as to the order denying De La Garza’s second two motions for preliminary injunctive relief. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(c)(1). After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying those motions. See Lankford v. Sherman, 451 F.3d 496, 503-04 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court has broad discretion when ruling on preliminary injunctions and this court reverses only for abuse of that discretion, which occurs where district court rests its conclusion on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusions); Mid-Am. Real Estate Co. v. Iowa Realty Co., 406 F.3d 969, 977 (8th Cir. 2005) (for court to enter preliminary injunction, it must find that moving party will be irreparably harmed absent injunction); Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (in prison’context, request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with complex and intractable problems of prison administration).

Accordingly, the district court’s order is affirmed.