Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Thomas v. Davey

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 22, 2017

EDWARD THOMAS, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVE DAVEY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PRIORITY SCREENING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MOOT (ECF NO. 30) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF Nos. 21, 30) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Edward Thomas (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 27, 2016. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and restraining order, filed on March 1, 2017, and May 8, 2017. (ECF Nos. 21, 30.) Plaintiff also has requested priority screening of his second amended complaint. (ECF No. 30.)

         I. Background

         On October 24, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 12.) On November 4 and November 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed consecutive motions for reconsideration of the Court's screening order by the district judge. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.)

         On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and restraining order against defendants at Corcoran State Prison and Warden Dave Davey. (ECF No. 21.)

         On March 6, 2017, the District Court denied Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration of the screening order dismissing his complaint with leave to amend. The Court directed Plaintiff to file his amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 22.)

         On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.)

         Thereafter, on May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for priority screening of his second amended complaint, along with a motion for preliminary injunction and restraining order. (ECF No. 30.)

         On June 22, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 33.)

         II. Discussion

         A. Request for Priority Screening

         Plaintiff's request for priority screening of his second amended complaint is now moot because the Court screened that complaint on June 22, 2017. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for priority screening is HEREBY DENIED.

         B. Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order

         “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “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.” Id. at 20 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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