Court Opinion

ID: 4662349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-23 21:00:56.770187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:45.583596
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED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 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. Our

jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals is governed by 28 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. See id. 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