IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 9, 2010
LONNIE TRIPP, PLAINTIFF,
KIM STOCKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On January 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for "compliance with previous orders." Plaintiff alleges that defendants are suddenly attempting to transfer him to a prison where he has known enemies and where his medical needs cannot be addressed. Other than this conclusory assertion, plaintiff provides no other facts in support of this claim. Plaintiff does not identify the prison where he is to be transferred. Nor does plaintiff discuss how he knows he has enemies at this prison or why his medical needs cannot be met at this prison.
Because plaintiff's motion is vague and conclusory, the court does not construe it as a motion for injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to its refiling as a motion for injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 20, 2010, motion for compliance with previous orders (no. 33) is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.