UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 27, 2012
MELANIE C. LATRONICA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff Melanie C. Latronica moves for an "Emergency Protective Order" on grounds that she is "a victim of technology that's in my mind and in my neck and head." She claims to "being tapped out and violated" and states that she has "been a victim for over ten years and just recently my head was cut open." Concurrently with the above-described motion, filed on April 20, 2012 (which the Court will construe as a request for temporary restraining order) Plaintiff filed a three page complaint that appears to allege "civil rights" and a "technical violation in my body", among other contentions.
At least in the caption to the complaint, Plaintiff requests a "madatory (sic) injunction".
Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order is procedurally defective and must be denied on that basis alone. Contrary to the provisions of Local Rule 231(c)(5), Plaintiff has failed to submit an affidavit detailing her efforts to provide notice to the defendants, or, alternatively, the reasons why such notice should not have been provided. Plaintiff has also not submitted a brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the motion, or an affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury, as also required by Rule 231(c). Consequently Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 3) is DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to renew her application in accordance with the provisions of Rule 231(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.