NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CESAR CABALLERO, No. 21-15879

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00638-KJM-CKD v.

MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL WILLIAMS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees, ______________________________ D-Q UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Intervenor-Pending.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Cesar Caballero appeals from the district court’s order denying his

*

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). application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in his action to adjudicate his rights to Indian lands and alleging harassment in violation of state law. We have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction. Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., 891 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2018). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

We lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal because the district court’s denial of a TRO was not tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction and did not effectively decide the merits of the case. See Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int’l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir. 1989) (although ordinarily not appealable, denial of a TRO may be appealed if tantamount to denial of a preliminary injunction; the court considers whether the denial followed a full adversary hearing and whether, absent review, appellant would be effectively foreclosed from pursuing further interlocutory relief); Graham v. Teledyne-Cont’l Motors, 805 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987) (denial of TRO may be appealed if it effectively decides the merits of the case).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

2 21-15879