Gabriel John Bradway v. YASHODARA RAO, Chief Dr. of Mental Health, E.O.P.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL JOHN BRADWAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
YASHODARA RAO, Chief Dr. of Mental
Health, E.O.P.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15346
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00436-JAM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gabriel John Bradway appeals pro se from the
district court’s 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
* 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
AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15346
U.S.C. § 1292. Because the district court’s denial of Bradway’s motion for a TRO
is not an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for lack jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order denying Bradway’s
motion for a TRO because it did not amount to the denial of a preliminary
injunction. Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int’l, 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 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).
We do not consider Bradway’s contention that the district court erred by
overruling his untimely objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendation because it is not reviewable by this court in an interlocutory
appeal.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --