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-