Garcia v. Clark, et al.

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING 11 , 15 and 20 Plaintiff's Motions to Supplement May 5, 2010 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF to Either Notify the Court that He Does Not Wish to File a New Motion for Preliminary Injunction OR File a Complete New Motion for Preliminary Injunction That Incorporates All of Plaintiff's Exhibits, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/2/2011. Response due within twenty (20) days. (Jessen, A)

(PC) Garcia v. Clark, et al.

Doc. 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WILLIAM P. GARCIA, 9 10 v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00447-OWW-DLB PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT MAY 5, 2010 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCS. 11, 15, 20) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO NOTIFY COURT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS /

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 KEN CLARK, et al., 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff William P. Garcia ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Defendants.

16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land 18 Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). This action is proceeding on 19 Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed May 24, 2010, against Defendants Palmer, Tolson, Turner, 20 C. Walter, Santos, D. Ibarra, S. Knight, Sanez, F. Diaz, and K. Allison for violation of the First 21 Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA.1 Pending 22 before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed May 5, 2010, and 23 Plaintiff's motions to supplement Plaintiff's May 5, 2010 motion, filed on May 19, 2010, 24 September 22, 2010, and December 13, 2010. Docs. 8, 11, 15, 20. 25 Plaintiff's motions to supplement his motion for preliminary injunction are denied. There

26 is no authority for Plaintiff to supplement his motion in such a piecemeal manner. See L.R. 230 27 28
1

Defendants Seinez and Turner have not appeared in this action.

1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 (governing motions practice in Eastern District of California). If Plaintiff wishes to incorporate 2 all his exhibits and supporting documents into the motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff 3 will be required to withdraw his May 5, 2010 motion and submit a complete, new motion with 4 the Court. Plaintiff will have twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order in which to 5 either notify the Court that he does not wish to file a new motion for preliminary injunction, or 6 file a complete, new motion for preliminary injunction. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3b142a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b. 2. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motions to supplement Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, filed May 19, 2010, September 22, 2010, and December 13, 2010, are DENIED; Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is to file either a. notice with the Court that he does not wish to file a new motion for preliminary injunction and will proceed on his May 5, 2010 motion, or a complete, new motion for preliminary injunction that incorporates all of Plaintiff's exhibits.

March 2, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE