Miller v. Rufion, et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 22 , signed by Judge Barry T. Moskowitz on 4/8/09: Plaintiff may not file any further Motions for Reconsider the Court's February 11, 2009 Order. If he does, the Court may impose sanctions. (Hellings, J)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

CDCR #C-92075,

GERALD L. MILLER, JR.,

Civil No.

08-1233 BTM (WMc)

Plaintiff, vs. O. RUFION; MOONGA, R.N., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 22]

On January 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Show Cause and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO")" [Doc. No. 12]. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for TRO on February 11, 2009. Plaintiff then filed a "Motion to Reconsider Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief" [Doc. No. 20]. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider on March 16, 2009. Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Objections to the Denial of Temporary Restraining Order with Points and Authorities" which has been filed as another "Motion for
-108cv1233

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reconsideration of the Court's February 11, 2009 Order Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief" [Doc. No. 22]. There are no new claims or arguments in these "objections." Instead, Plaintiff continues to claim that this Court "erred" and "abused its discretion" in denying Plaintiff's Motion for TRO and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. (Pl.'s Mot. at 6-7.) Plaintiff does have the right to file objections when a Magistrate Judge issues a report and recommendation pursuant to 27 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(c). However, a report and recommendation was not issued for either ruling that Plaintiff seeks to overturn. Plaintiff's current Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 22] is DENIED as the Court has already considered his requests and reviewed his arguments in the denial of the original Motion for TRO and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims relating to lack of medical care against the defendants, who are nurses. There is no evidence that these defendants have anything to do with the alleged withholding of Plaintiff's mail. The only persons the Court has jurisdiction over in this case are the named defendants. Since the named defendants are not involved in the events underlying Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order, the motion for injunctive relief has been denied. Any claim of retaliatory withholding of mail must be made in a new case against the responsible individuals, not in this case. Plaintiff may not file any further Motions to Reconsider the Court's February 11, 2009 Order. If he does, the Court may impose sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 8, 2009

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge

-2-

08cv1233