LAW.coLAW.co

BRADWAY v. RAO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-25No. No. 21-15346

Summary

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order does not constitute an appealable interlocutory order.

Gabriel Bradway, a state prisoner, appealed from a district court order that rejected his request for a temporary restraining order in a civil rights lawsuit claiming inadequate medical care. The appellate court examined whether it had authority to hear the appeal under federal interlocutory appeal rules. Because a denial of a temporary restraining order is generally not an appealable decision unless it effectively amounts to a refusal to grant a preliminary injunction, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the lower court's action.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Appealability of temporary restraining order denials
  • Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292
  • Distinction between temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions

Procedural posture

A state prisoner brought a pro se section 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs and appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order to the appellate court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gabriel John Bradway appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Our jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Because the district courts denial of Bradways motion for a TRO is not an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for lack jurisdiction.

We lack jurisdiction over the district courts order denying Bradways motion for a TRO because it did not amount to the denial of a preliminary injunction. Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Intl, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (explaining that an appeal ordinarily “does not lie from the denial of an application for a temporary restraining order” because such appeals are considered “premature,” and that a district courts order denying an application for a TRO is reviewable on appeal only if the order is tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction).

We do not consider Bradways contention that the district court erred by overruling his untimely objections to the magistrate judges findings and recommendation because it is not reviewable by this court in an interlocutory appeal.

DISMISSED.