We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Ventura Unified School District

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 30, 2026
• Docket: 25-5239
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WE THE PATRIOTS USA, INC.; JANE No. 25-5239 DOE, on her own behalf and on behalf of D.C. No. Child 1, 2:25-cv-04659-AB-JC Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v.

VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; ANTONIO CASTRO, in his official capacity only; ERIK NASARENKO, in his official capacity only; SARA BRUCKER, in her official capacity only; TONY THURMOND, in his official capacity only; ERICA PAN, in her official capacity only,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 17, 2026 Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiffs-Appellants Jane Doe and We the Patriots USA appeal the district

court’s denial of their Renewed Emergency Application for a temporary restraining

order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. Because we lack jurisdiction over this

appeal, we dismiss.

1. “[O]rders ruling on TRO motions ‘are typically not appealable[.]’” Babaria

v. Blinken, 87 F.4th 963, 975 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v.

Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 659–60 (9th Cir. 2021)). “[A] denial of a TRO may be

appealed if the circumstances render the denial ‘tantamount to the denial of a

preliminary injunction.’” Id. at 976 (simplified). A TRO is tantamount to a

preliminary injunction when “the denial of the TRO effectively decided the merits

of the case” and rendered plaintiffs’ claims moot. Id. (simplified). Another hallmark

is that the “TRO was strongly challenged in adversarial proceedings before the

district court.” Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th Cir. 2017).

None of these hallmarks are present here. In reviewing Appellants’ renewed

TRO request, the district court applied the “legal standard that applies to TRO

applications,” observed that Appellants’ filing was not a “regularly noticed motion,”

and construed the motion as “an ex parte Application for a TRO.” The district court

then denied the application on procedural grounds three days after it was filed and

without full briefing or a hearing. The district court’s order thus resolved only an

application for a TRO, and, because the order was denied on procedural grounds, the

2 25-5239 court did not deprive Appellants of the opportunity to seek a preliminary injunction.

Absent the stay entered after Appellants filed their notice of appeal, nothing

prevented Appellants from continuing to pursue the merits of their case.

Appellants argue that the inclusion of the term “preliminary injunction” in the

title of their filing shows that the district court denied their “clear request for a

preliminary injunction.” But “the label attached to a motion does not control its

substance,” and the “substance of the motion, not its form, controls its disposition.”

Anderson v. United States, 298 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (simplified). And

Appellants’ proposed order submitted to the district court sought only the grant of

their “emergency application for a temporary restraining order.” Thus, the labeling

of their motion cannot overcome the lack of any substantive hallmarks of a denial of

a preliminary injunction.

2. Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not reach any

procedural or merits-related issues this case presents.

DISMISSED.

3 25-5239