Azariah M. Ellington; Mitchell D. Ellington v. Mary Thornton House;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AZARIAH M. ELLINGTON; MITCHELL
D. ELLINGTON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MARY THORNTON HOUSE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56865
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07587-SVW-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Azariah M. Ellington appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for a preliminary injunction in his civil rights action against a state
court judge and other parties involved in probate proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an abuse of discretion.
* 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
MAR 27 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-56865
Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir.
2016). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ellington’s motion
for a preliminary injunction because Ellington failed to establish a likelihood of
success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of
injunctive relief. See Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“A
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s interlocutory order
denying Ellington’s motion for declaratory relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (generally,
court has jurisdiction to review only final decision of the district court).
We lack jurisdiction to consider arguments made on behalf of Mitchell D.
Ellington because he did not sign the notice of appeal and Azariah M. Ellington
has no authority to represent other parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2)
(requirements for a notice of appeal); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818
F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (a non-attorney has no authority to appear as an
attorney for others).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-56865
The “urgent” motion (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --