Cheteni v. California Department of Education

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREEDOM CHETENI, No. 25-775 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-06286-SI Petitioner - Appellant, and MEMORANDUM* THE VR SCHOOL, a California non-profit corporation, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, a California state agency; MALIA VELLA, in her official capacity as Deputy Superintendent; CARRIE LOPES, In his official capacity as Division Director, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2025** * 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). Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Freedom Cheteni appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action alleging federal claims arising out of the suspension of funding for The VR School, a private school Cheteni operates. 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 Cheteni’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Cheteni failed to establish the requirements for such relief. See id. (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); see also Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Tr., 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)). Cheteni’s motion (Docket Entry No. 14) for judicial notice is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 25-775