Jerry Dillingham v. J. Garcia ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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 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