IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30234
Conference Calendar
TERRY MELVIN JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary, Department
of Public Safety and Corrections; BERNARD
BOUDREAUX, in his individual capacity,
also known as Trey Boudreaux; KENNETH
BOOTY, Assistant Warden; STEVEN L.
THOMAS, Colonel,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-76-B
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terry Melvin Jackson, Louisiana prisoner # 120416, filed a
civil rights complaint in the district court pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that prison officials spread
inaccurate rumors about him, that he was charged erroneously with
various prison disciplinary actions that resulted in a brief term
of administrative segregation, and that he was falsely charged in
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-30234
-2-
retaliation for his attempts to expose prison officials’ improper
treatment of him. Jackson appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a
preliminary injunction.
This court has no appellate jurisdiction over the denial of
an application for a temporary restraining order because it does
not qualify as an “injunction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
Faulder v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999); Matter of
Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). To the extent Jackson’s
motion was one seeking a preliminary injunction, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying it because Jackson
has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that he will
prevail on the merits of his claims. See Lakedreams v. Taylor,
932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the district
court’s denial of Jackson’s motion is AFFIRMED.