Mengistu v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NEWAY MENGISTU, No. 25-1099 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-05512-MWF- Plaintiff - Appellant, MAA v. MEMORANDUM* HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; OTHERS TO BE JOINED UNDER RULE 19 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Neway Mengistu appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his housing and disability discrimination

* 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). action. 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 Mengistu’s motion for a preliminary injunction because the record showed the adjustment of Mengistu’s housing voucher was made pursuant to the appropriate housing regulations and therefore Mengistu failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. See 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.403 (live-in aid requirements), 5.703 (bedroom occupancy requirements); Am. Trucking, 559 F.3d at 1052 (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).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-1099