Jerry Kent Dillingham v. J. Garcia;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRY KENT DILLINGHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. GARCIA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17269
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00461-AWI-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17269
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 of 2 --