Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Francis Steffan HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON; Kate Brown, private capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Francis Steffan Hayes appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes's motion for a preliminary injunction because Hayes failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest); see also Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905) (holding the Supreme Court “has distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine law and health laws of every description” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
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 denying the TRO did not amount to the denial of a preliminary injunction, we do not have jurisdiction over that portion of Hayes's appeal.
We reject as meritless Hayes's claims that the district judge was biased against him. His motion in the district court seeking her recusal is outside of the scope of this appeal.
Hayes's motions for emergency interlocutory relief (Docket Entry Nos. 13 and 14) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-35736
Decided: June 01, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)