248 F.3d 1155 (6th Cir. 2001), 00-5774, Wong-Opasi v. Haynes

Docket Nº:00-5774.
Citation:248 F.3d 1155
Party Name:Uthaiwan WONG-OPASI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara N. HAYNES, Circuit Court Judge; William C. Koch, Jr., Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:March 16, 2001
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1155

248 F.3d 1155 (6th Cir. 2001)

Uthaiwan WONG-OPASI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Barbara N. HAYNES, Circuit Court Judge; William C. Koch, Jr., Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-5774.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

March 16, 2001

         Editorial Note:

         This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

        Before NORRIS and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; ZATKOFF, District Judge. [*]

        Uthaiwan Wong-Opasi, a Tennessee resident proceeding pro se, appeals the district court orders denying her request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and denying her motion to alter the judgment in this case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

        On May 8, 2000, Wong-Opasi filed an application for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction naming Davidson County, Tennessee, Circuit Court Judge Barbara Haynes and Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge William C. Koch, Jr., as defendants. She alleged that the defendants violated her right to equal protection by imposing a cost bond for her state court appeal. The district court denied Wong-Opasi's application and dismissed the action without prejudice, concluding that her remedies lay with the state courts. Wong-Opasi timely filed a motion to alter the judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The district court denied the motion for the reasons given in the court's previous order.

        In her timely appeal, Wong-Opasi argues that the district court erred by: (1) denying the motion and dismissing the case without holding an evidentiary hearing; and (2) concluding that Wong-Opasi had adequate state court remedies.

        Initially, we note that the district court's order is appealable only to the extent that the district court declined to grant a preliminary injunction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order is not appealable. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO, 473 U.S. 1301, 1303-05 (1985).

        This court reviews a district court's judgment denying a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP