DocketNumber: 20-17269
Filed Date: 2/23/2021
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 2/23/2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JERRY KENT DILLINGHAM, No. 20-17269 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00461-AWI-GSA v. MEMORANDUM* J. GARCIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Jerry Kent Dillingham appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in his42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging various constitutional claims. Our jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals is governed by28 U.S.C. § 1292
. Because * 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). the district court’s denial of Dillingham’s motions for a TRO are not appealable interlocutory orders, we dismiss the appeal for lack jurisdiction. 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 did not amount to the denial of a preliminary injunction, we do not have jurisdiction. Dillingham’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied. DISMISSED. 2 20-17269