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)

Download PDF
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?