Knapp v. Cate, et al.

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING 28 Motion signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/15/2010. (Bradley, A)

(PC) Knapp v. Cate, et al.

Doc. 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney Knapp ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting expedited screening of Plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff has cited no authority in support of his request for expedited screening of his complaint. In any event, the Court screened Plaintiff's second amended complaint on September 8, 2010. Plaintiff also requests that the Court issue "some type of order at least temporarily protecting Plaintiff from the irreparable injury and harm(s) he seeks preliminary injunctive relief regarding[sic] until such time as this case can be deemed fully brought before this Court. . . ." (Request by Plaintiff for Expedited Screening, Service, Etc. of Amended Complaint 2:14-18, ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff's request for relief is vague and fails to identify any specific threat of future irreparable injury. Plaintiff was previously provided with the standards for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief when the Court denied Plaintiff's previous motions for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order. (Doc. #18, 22.) Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, he must do so by filing a motion that satisfies the requirements described in the Court's previous 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01779-SKO PC ORDER DENYING MOTION (Doc. 28)

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

orders. Plaintiff has made no effort to make the necessary showing to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's October 16, 2009 motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj September 15, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2