Country Joe Stevens, aka Singing Horse v. Howard Skolnick;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COUNTRY JOE STEVENS, aka Singing
Horse,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOWARD SKOLNICK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16876
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00227-BES-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Country Joe Stevens, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district
court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”).
Stevens brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Nevada Department of
FILED
JUL 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-16876 2
Corrections Administrative Regulations 810 and 711, which deal with religious
faith group activities and programs, and the prison officials’ confiscation of
religious objects, violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of his Native
American religion, his equal protection rights, and his rights under the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Stevens sought to temporarily
restrain prison officials from refusing Stevens permission to perform his daily
Native American prayer practice. The district court concluded that Stevens failed
to show a significant threat of irreparable injury, and denied the request for a TRO.
Generally, a district court’s denial of an application for a TRO is not an
appealable final order. See Religious Tech. Ctr. Church of Scientology Int’l, Inc. v.
Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir. 1989. Although an “order denominated a
TRO that possesses qualities of a preliminary injunction is a reviewable
interlocutory order,” SEIU v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare Workers, 598 F.3d 1061,
1067 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding a TRO akin to a preliminary injunction where the
district court held an adversarial hearing and where the duration of the TRO
exceeded the ordinary duration for TROs), we conclude that the district court’s
order is not akin to the denial of a preliminary injunction and is therefore not

-- 2 of 3 --

09-16876 3
reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
Appellant’s motion to strike portions of the answering brief is denied.
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --