T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C O U N T R Y J O E S T E V E N S , a kaS i ngi ng H orse , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. H O W A R D S K O L N I C K ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 16876 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 2 2 7 - BESR AM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da B r i a n E . S a ndova l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 29, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C ou ntryJoe S t evens, a N evada s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se the di stri ct c o u rt’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rate m p o r a ryr e s tr a in in g o r d e r( “T R O ” ) . S t e ve ns br oughta42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tthe N e va daD e pa rtm e ntof 

# FI LED JU L 01 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16876 2 C orr e c t i ons A dm i ni s tr a t i ve R e gul a t i ons 810 and 711, w hi c h de a l w i th r e l i gi ous f a i th gr oup a c t i vi t i e s a nd pr ogr a m s , a nd the pr i s on of f i c i a l s ’ c onf

i s c a t i on of r e l i gi ous obj e c t s , vi ol a t e d hi s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o f r e e e xe r c i s e of

hi s N a t i ve A m e r i c a n r e l i gi on, hi s e qua l pr ot e c t i on r i ght s , a nd hi s r i ght s unde rthe R e l i gi ous L a n d U s e a n d I n s titu tio n a liz e d P e r s o n s A c t. S te v e n s s o u g h t to te m p o r a r ily r e s tr a in p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls f r o m r e f u s in g S te v e n s p e rm is s io n to p e r f o rm h is d a ily N at i ve A m er i can p raye r pra ct i ce . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatS t evens f ai l ed t o s h o w as i g n i f

i c a n tth r e a to f

i rr e p a r ab l e i n

j u ry , a n dd e n i e dth e r e q u e s tf o raT R O. G ener al l y, a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of an appl i ca t i on for aT R O i s notan appeal abl e f

i nal order. See R el i

gi ou s T ec h. C tr. Chu rc h o

f Sci entolog

y I nt ’l , Inc. v. Sc o tt , 869 F . 2d 1306, 1308 ( 9th C i r . 1989. A l though a n “ or de rde nom i na t e d a T R O th a t p o s s e s s e s q u a litie s o f ap r e lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n is ar e v ie w ab le in te r lo c u to ryo r d e r ,” S

E IU v. N a t ’l U n i o n o f H ea l th ca re W

o rkers , 598 F . 3d 1061, 1067 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( f

i ndi ng aT R O a ki n t o apr e l i m i na ryi nj unc t i on w he r e the d i s tr i c tc o u rth e l d a n a d v e r s a r i a l h e a r i n g a n dw h e r e th e d u r a t i o n o f th e TRO ex ce ed ed th e o rd in ary d u ra ti o n fo r T R O s) , w e c o n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt’s or de ri s nota ki n t o the de ni a l of apr e l i m i na ryi nj unc t i on a nd i s the r e f or e not09- 16876 3 r e v ie w ab le u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . A ppe l l a nt ’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke port i ons of the a ns w e r i ng br i e f

i s de ni e d. D I SM I SSED .