NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW RYLEY CORZINE, No. 17-16605
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00052-MMD-WGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADAM PAUL LAXALT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Matthew Ryley Corzine appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of
residency requirements for sex offenders under Nevada law. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v.
*
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).
City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Corzine’s request
for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the enforcement of statutory
residency requirements because Corzine failed to establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits of his claim alleging that the imposition of lifetime
supervision conditions violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. See U.S. CONST. ART. I,
§ 9, cl. 3; Jackson, 746 F.3d at 958 (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 lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Corzine’s claims because the
district court’s order did not dispose of the action as to all claims between the
parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Prellwitz v. Sisto, 657 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.
2011) (appellate jurisdiction is limited to final orders disposing of all claims
between parties).
Appellees’ motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied
as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16605