Cesar Caballero v. Michael Williams ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR CABALLERO, No. 21-15879
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00638-KJM-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL WILLIAMS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
______________________________
D-Q UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA,
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Intervenor-Pending.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Caballero appeals from the district court’s order denying his
*
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).
application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in his action to adjudicate
his rights to Indian lands and alleging harassment in violation of state law. We
have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction. Havensight Capital LLC v.
Nike, Inc., 891 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2018). We dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal because the district
court’s denial of a TRO was not tantamount to the denial of a preliminary
injunction and did not effectively decide the merits of the case. See Religious
Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int’l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th
Cir. 1989) (although ordinarily not appealable, denial of a TRO may be appealed if
tantamount to denial of a preliminary injunction; the court considers whether the
denial followed a full adversary hearing and whether, absent review, appellant
would be effectively foreclosed from pursuing further interlocutory relief);
Graham v. Teledyne-Cont’l Motors, 805 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987) (denial of
TRO may be appealed if it effectively decides the merits of the case).
All pending motions are denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
2 21-15879