IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 13, 2010
JOSEPH ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF,
PLUMAS COUNTY, DEFENDANT.
The pro se plaintiff has filed a motion for injunction and has noticed the motion for hearing on December 17, 2010. The three-page motion does not include a brief on the relevant legal issues or affidavits in support of the motion, including an affidavit addressing the question of irreparable injury. See Local Rule 231. In addition, plaintiff's motion does not seek temporary or preliminary relief but rather the ultimate relief plaintiff appears to seek in this suit, i.e., millions of dollars in damages and a permanent injunction. In that regard, the present motion is premature. Plaintiff's motion will be denied without prejudice and will be dropped from the December 17, 2010 law and motion calendar.
Defendant's ex parte application for an enlargement of time to oppose plaintiff's motion for injunction and for an order deeming defendant's late opposition to be timely will be denied as moot, and defendant's proposed opposition will be disregarded. The motion included in defendant's proposed opposition as a related or counter-motion must be re-filed and noticed for hearing as a separate motion.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's November 19, 2010 motion for injunction (Doc. No. 6) is denied without prejudice as premature and for failure to comply with Local Rule 231, and the motion is dropped from the court's December 17, 2010 law and motion calendar;
2. Defendant's December 8, 2010 ex parte application for enlargement of time and for an order deeming defendant's late opposition timely (Doc. No. 11) is denied as moot;
3. Defendant's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum shall be re-filed as a separate motion and shall be noticed for hearing in accordance with the Local Rules.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.