UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 30, 2011
RICHARD ERNEST ANAYA,
HERRINGTON, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 34) ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO SERVE AND FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (DOC. 45) RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Richard Ernest Anaya ("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 Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. This action is proceeding against
Defendants Chen, R. Keldgore, Lopez, Herrington, and J. White. On
February 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled "Motion for
Temporary Restraining Orders to stop irreparable harm." Doc. 34. On
May 6, 2011, Plaintiff re-filed the same motion. Doc. 45.*fn1
The Court treats these motions as one for preliminary injunction.*fn2
"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) (citations omitted). The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984).
Plaintiff's February 16, 2011 motion was never served on any Defendants. Defendants had yet to appear in the action, and were thus not notified. Plaintiff's May 6, 2011 motion does not appear to have been served on Defendants. However, Defendants had appeared as of April 14, 2011, and notice was provided to Defendants' counsel of Plaintiff's motion. In the interest of justice, the Court will deny Plaintiff's February 16, 2011 motion without prejudice, and require Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff's May 6, 2011 motion.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed February 16, 2011, is DENIED without prejudice; and
2. Defendants are to file a response to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed May 6, 2011, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.