Ralph Blakely v. Gregory Jones

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 3, 2018
• Docket: 18-35647
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RALPH HOWARD BLAKELY, No. 18-35647

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05021-RBL-TLF

v. MEMORANDUM* GREGORY JONES, in his individual capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Ralph Howard Blakely appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City &

* 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). County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm in part and

dismiss in part.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Blakely’s motions

seeking the return of his legal documents because Blakely failed to establish that

such relief is warranted. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, 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).

We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s discovery ruling and order

denying Blakely’s motions for appointment of counsel. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v.

Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 825 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Orders relating

to discovery . . . are orders that regulate the conduct of litigation and are not

appealable under § 1292(a)(1).”); Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th

Cir. 1985) (order denying appointment of counsel is not a final appealable order).

In sum, we affirm the district court as to the denial of a preliminary

injunction and dismiss this appeal as to all other issues raised in the opening brief.

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.

2 18-35647