slight showing of irreparable injury.”).) Among the four required showings, it is “particularly important for the [movant] to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Barton v. Dist. of Columbia, 131 F.Supp.2d 236, 242 (D.D.C.2001) (citing Benten v. Kessler, 505 U.S. 1084, 1085, 112 S.Ct. 2929, 120 L.Ed.2d 926 (1992)). If the movant fails to do so, “it would take a very strong showing with respect to the other preliminary injunction factors to turn the tide in plaintiffi’s] favor.” Davenport v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 166 F.3d 356, 366 (D.C.Cir. 1999). In addition, a plaintiff must show at least some likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (<HOLDING>); CityFed, 58 F.3d at 747 (holding that a
holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that a movant for a preliminary injunction must first demonstrate that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that in the absence of an injunction irreparable injury is likely and not merely a possibility holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction