Litmon

MEMORANDUM **

David Litmon, Jr., appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action in which he alleged that he was unlawfully detained in the Santa Clara County Jail during civil commitment proceedings under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. Lit-mon also appeals the district court’s order denying his application for a temporary restraining order. We lack jurisdiction to hear these appeals and therefore dismiss.

We have jurisdiction of appeals from final judgments of a district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The district court granted summary judgment to seven defendants; however, Litmon’s claims against ten other defendants remain pending. Therefore, the district court’s order is not an appeal-able final judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Sch. Dist. No. 40 v. Kirk, 109 F.3d 634 , 636 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (“[A]n order or decision must adjudicate the claims of all of the parties to an action in order to be an appealable final judgment.”); Patchick v. Kensington Publ’g Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984).

A district court’s denial of an application for a temporary restraining order also is not an appealable…