IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 16, 2013
JEREMY JAMISON, PLAINTIFF,
OFFICER DAVUE ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several motions filed by plaintiff.
First, plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment as well as two additional motions seeking to supplement his motion for summary judgment. The court will deny plaintiff's summary judgment related motions without prejudice. As an initial matter, plaintiff did not sign his actual motion for summary judgment. Under Local Rule 131 and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff must sign every written motion he submits to the court. See Local Rule 131 & Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). In addition, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 260. Local Rule 260 requires a motion for summary be supported by a "Statement of Undisputed Facts" and cite to particular evidence plaintiff relies upon to establish his undisputed facts. See Local Rule 260. Plaintiff has not submitted a statement of undisputed facts or proper evidence in support of his motion. Nor does plaintiff's motion comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the moving party to identify each claim on which summary judgment is sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Plaintiff's five-page motion for summary judgment and his proposed supplements thereto are vague and conclusory and fall short of demonstrating that he is entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law.
Also pending before the court are plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief. The court will deny these motions brought by plaintiff without prejudice as well. First, plaintiff's brief motions do not comply with Local Rule 231 which requires that a motion for preliminary injunctive relief be accompanied by: (1) a declaration signed under penalty of perjury on the question of irreparable injury; (2) a memorandum of points and authorities addressing all legal issues raised by the motion; and (3) evidence of notice to all persons who would be affected by the order sought. In addition, in plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief , he does not specify who he seeks relief from but rather simply asks the court to order him transferred to a different jail while this lawsuit is pending. Plaintiff is advised that this court is unable to issue an order against any individual or entity who is not a party to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court."). Finally, "[t]he proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate '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.'"' Stormans v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). Again, plaintiff's pending motions for preliminary injunctive relief are vague and conclusory and fall short of making the showing required for the granting of preliminary injunctive relief. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and motions to supplement (Doc. Nos. 39, 41 & 42) are denied without prejudice; and
2. Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 44, 45, 46 & 48) are denied without prejudice.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.