Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

William P. Garcia v. Ken Clark

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 2, 2011

WILLIAM P. GARCIA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEN CLARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO NOTIFY COURT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT MAY 5, 2010 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCS. 11, 15, 20)

Plaintiff William P. Garcia ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed May 24, 2010, against Defendants Palmer, Tolson, Turner,

C. Walter, Santos, D. Ibarra, S. Knight, Sanez, F. Diaz, and K. Allison for violation of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA.*fn1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed May 5, 2010, and Plaintiff's motions to supplement Plaintiff's May 5, 2010 motion, filed on May 19, 2010, September 22, 2010, and December 13, 2010. Docs. 8, 11, 15, 20.

Plaintiff's motions to supplement his motion for preliminary injunction are denied. There is no authority for Plaintiff to supplement his motion in such a piecemeal manner. See L.R. 230 (governing motions practice in Eastern District of California). If Plaintiff wishes to incorporate all his exhibits and supporting documents into the motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff will be required to withdraw his May 5, 2010 motion and submit a complete, new motion with the Court. Plaintiff will have twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order in which to either notify the Court that he does not wish to file a new motion for preliminary injunction, or file a complete, new motion for preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions to supplement Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed May 19, 2010, September 22, 2010, and December 13, 2010, are DENIED;

2. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is to file either

a. notice with the Court that he does not wish to file a new motion for preliminary injunction and will proceed on his May 5, 2010 motion, or

b. a complete, new motion for preliminary injunction that incorporates all of Plaintiff's exhibits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3b142a

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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