Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Villegas v. Schulteis

August 24, 2010

SANTOS A. VILLEGAS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
L.L. SCHULTEIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (Docs. 24, 31, 39, 41, 45, 49, 52) and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED (Docs. 31, 33, 46) / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Santos A. Villegas ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are several motions from Plaintiff. On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to mail back exhibits that Plaintiff sent to the Court. (Doc. #24.) On April 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a copy of the local rules and requesting a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. (Doc. #31.) Plaintiff filed a second request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order on April 9, 2010. (Doc. #33.) Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an entry of default on April 26, 2010. (Doc. #39.) Plaintiff filed a third motion requesting a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order on June 18, 2010. (Doc. #46.)

Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' answer on May 3, 2010. (Doc. #41.) On May 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to object or oppose Defendants' answer. (Doc. #45.) On July 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. #49.) On July 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to set a trial date in this action. (Doc. #52.)

I. Discussion

A. Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Return of His Exhibits

Plaintiff's January 15, 2010 motion requests that the Court return all the exhibits attached to his complaint. The Court will deny Plaintiff's request. As stated in Local Rule 138(a)(2), "[a]ll . . . paper files and records of the Court shall remain in the custody of the Clerk. No file and no record, paper, or item belonging to the files of the Court shall be taken from the custody of the Clerk without a special order of the Court and a receipt given by the party obtaining it, describing it and the date of its receipt." As articulated in the First Informational Order, "If the filing party wishes the court to return a file-stamped copy [of documents submitted for filing], he or she must include one copy for that purpose AND a pre-addressed postage paid envelope. The court cannot provide copies or mailing service for a party, even for an indigent plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis." (First Informational Order in Prisoner Civil Rights Case ¶ 3, ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff did not provide an extra copy of his exhibits or a pre-addressed postage paid envelope to facilitate the return of the exhibits. The Court cannot expend its resources to provide copies and mailing service for Plaintiff.

Additionally, the First Informational Order warned Plaintiff not to send original exhibits to the Court because paper documents sent to the Court will only be retained for a limited period of time before being discarded. (First Informational Order ¶ 7, ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

Plaintiff's January 15, 2010 motion also requests the Court to provide an extra summons and USM-285 form to facilitate service on Defendants. It appears that this issue has already been resolved in a separate order on January 11, 2010. (Doc. #23.) Plaintiff's motion will, therefore, be denied as moot.

B. Plaintiff's Motion Requesting a Copy of the Local Rules

Plaintiff's April 1, 2010 motion requests the Court to send him a copy of the local rules. The Court does not provide litigants with copies of the local rules. Plaintiff's request will be denied.

Plaintiff also requests "the Court to provide the Eastern District approved forms for a person in pro per." (Request for Court: Local Court Rules and Procedure for Eastern District, Civil Motion Calendar, and Preliminary Injunction-Temporary Restraining Order 2, ECF No. 31.) It is unclear to what "Eastern District approved forms" Plaintiff is referring. Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

Plaintiff's motion also requests "the Courts[sic] motion calendar, to be aware of all dates and expected dates. As well a[sic] copy of all dates for motions, filed regarding the case at bench; in the form of the courts[sic] docket file." (Request for Court 2, ECF No. 31.) The Court will not provide Plaintiff with status reports and notices regarding when deadlines are approaching. The Court will notify Plaintiff when any action is taken in this case. It is Plaintiff's burden to remain cognizant of all relevant deadlines and motions in his lawsuit. Plaintiff's request for a "motion calendar" and notice of all motions, dates, and filings relevant to this action will be denied.

C. Plaintiff's Motions for a Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff has filed three requests for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). "[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant,by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.