the five appellants lacked standing to seek injunctive relief does have the “practical effect” of denying an injunction, because it has “erected a ‘legal barrier’ foreclosing any meaningful future consideration of a formal application” for injunctive relief by these particular appellants. Plymouth Nuclear, 655 F.2d at 17. This Court may therefore only premise its jurisdiction on a showing that appellants face “serious, perhaps irreparable, harm” upon the denial of immediate review. Carson, 450 U.S. at 84, 101 S.Ct. 993. The procedural history of the instant litigation, specifically appellants’ failure to pursue appellate (or other) review of the district court’s earlier denial of a preliminary injunction, points against a finding of serious harm. Plymouth Nuclear, 655 F.2d at 17-18 (<HOLDING>). In this case, appellants’ motion for a
holding plaintiffs appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction moot where defendants directive no longer in effect holding that interim awards of attorneys fees are inappropriate where the only relief obtained is a preliminary injunction which may be subsequently overturned on the merits holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction holding that the failure to appeal from or move for reconsideration of a previous denial of a preliminary injunction makes interim relief a dead issue and is indicative of a lack of serious harm 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