Court Opinion

ID: 2963419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:30.077237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:58.946496
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        June 14, 1995           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1809

                                    JIRAH KELLEY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              LARRY E. DUBOISE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge.
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Jirah Kelley on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Ann  M. McCarthy,  Counsel for  the Department  of  Correction, On
            ________________
        Memorandum In Support of Motion for Summary Disposition for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________
          

                      Per  Curiam.      Jirah  Kelley  is  appealing  the
                      ___________

            district  court's denial  of  certain motions  in his  action

            brought under 42 U.S.C.    1983.  We dismiss  Kelley's appeal

            of  the court's denial of  his motion for  a default judgment

            (also  characterized  as a  motion  for  summary judgment  by

            default)  for want of jurisdiction.   See Bird  v. Reese, 875
                                                  ___ ____     _____

            F.2d  256, 256  (9th Cir.  1989)  (denial of  a motion  for a

            default judgment is not immediately  appealable).  Construing

            Kelley's  motion for  a  protective order  as  a request  for

            preliminary injunctive  relief, we  affirm the denial  of the

            motion.     Kelley  apparently  sought  an  order  forbidding

            defendants  from retaliating  against  him  for  having  sued

            defendants.  We affirm  since the motion failed to  show that

            Kelley  was under any present threat of such retaliation.  We

            deny Kelley's other requests for relief as meritless.  

                      Dismissed   in   part   for   want   of   appellate
                      ___________________________________________________

            jurisdiction and affirmed in part.
            __________________________________

                                         -2-