DocketNumber: 20-35736
Filed Date: 6/1/2021
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 6/1/2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCIS STEFFAN HAYES, No. 20-35736 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-01332-CL v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF OREGON; KATE BROWN, private capacity, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2021** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Francis Steffan Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in his42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1292
(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. * 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). Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco,746 F.3d 953
, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Hayes failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Seeid.
(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 Jacobson v. Massachusetts,197 U.S. 11
, 25 (1905) (holding the Supreme Court “has distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine law and health laws of every description” (internal quotation marks omitted)). An appeal ordinarily “does not lie from the denial of an application for a temporary restraining order” because such appeals are considered “premature.” Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int’l, Inc. v. Scott,869 F.2d 1306
, 1308 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court’s order denying an application for a TRO is reviewable on appeal only if the order is tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction. Seeid.
Because the district court’s order denying the TRO did not amount to the denial of a preliminary injunction, we do not have jurisdiction over that portion of Hayes’s appeal. We reject as meritless Hayes’s claims that the district judge was biased 2 20-35736 against him. His motion in the district court seeking her recusal is outside of the scope of this appeal. Hayes’s motions for emergency interlocutory relief (Docket Entry Nos. 13 and 14) are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 20-35736