NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID FLORENCE, No. 20-15855 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00331-NONE- BAM v. S. KERNAN, Secretary of CDCR; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner David Florence appeals pro se from the district court’s interlocutory order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s policy of requiring certain prison facilities to integrate general

* 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). population inmates with special needs yard inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for abuse of discretion, Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 657 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Florence’s motions for a preliminary injunction because Florence failed to establish that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm. See Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief” among other factors (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see id. (noting that “[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient” to obtain a preliminary injunction); see also Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (determining that a prisoner’s claims for injunctive relief “relating to [a prison’s] policies are moot” when the prisoner has been moved and “he has demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning to [the prison]”).

We do not consider Florence’s objection to the filing fee in this case as it is outside the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-15855