Glass v. Rothrock et al
Filing
3
ORDER that Plaintiff's 1 "Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983" is denied. The Clerk of Court must close this case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/29/2014. (LFIG)
1
2
KAB
WO
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Harold Glass,
10
11
12
13
No. CV 14-1527-PHX-DGC (BSB)
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
David Rothrock, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
Plaintiff Harold Glass, who is confined in the State Correctional Institution-
16
Rockview in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed a document entitled “Emergency Restraining
17
Order 42 USC 1983” (Doc. 1).
18
19
seek extraordinary relief in an ongoing action that has been initiated by filing a complaint
20
or other proper petition that alleges jurisdictional facts. Indeed, Rule 65 of the Federal
21
Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the granting of preliminary injunctions and
22
temporary restraining orders, “was designed solely as a procedural tool to expedite the
23
action and accommodate the court and the litigants” and “does not confer either subject
24
matter or personal jurisdiction on the court.” Citizens Concerned for the Separation of
25
Church and State v. City and County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1299 (10th Cir. 1980)
26
(citation omitted). Before seeking injunctive relief, Plaintiff must first have a Complaint
27
pending before the Court. See Stewart v. United States Immigration & Naturalization
28
JDDL-K
Motions for injunctive relief are not independent actions, but rather a means to
Serv., 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985) (“Only after an action has been commenced can
1
preliminary injunctive relief be obtained.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2)); see also
2
Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (a party seeking
3
injunctive relief must establish a relationship between the claimed injury and the conduct
4
asserted in the complaint). Because there is no Complaint pending before the Court in
5
this case, Plaintiff’s “Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983” is not properly before
6
the Court.
7
frivolous allegations and has no legal basis.
8
“Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983” and will direct the Clerk of Court to close
9
this case.
10
11
12
Moreover, the “Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983” contains
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)
Plaintiff’s “Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983” (Doc. 1) is
denied.
13
(2)
14
Dated this 29th day of July, 2014.
The Clerk of Court must close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JDDL-K
Accordingly, the Court will deny the
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?