Gregorio Funtanilla v. Williams et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions For Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Docs. 7 , 8 , 10 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/3/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 GREGORIO FUNTANILLA, JR.,

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01624-DLB PC

9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

10

Plaintiff,
v.

(DOCS. 7, 8, 10)
11 ROMAN W. WILLIAMS, et al.,
12

Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff Gregorio Funtanilla, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the

16 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro
17 se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are
18 Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, filed October 4, 2010, October 12, 2010, and
19 December 20, 2010. Docs. 7, 8, 10.
20

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

21 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
22 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.
23 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). The purpose of
24 preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending
25 the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d
26 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded
27 as of right.” Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 376. An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing
28 that the movant is entitled to relief. Id.
1

1

First, Plaintiff attempts to supplement his motions for preliminary injunction. The

2 Court’s Local Rules do not provide for submission of piecemeal motions in this manner. See
3 L.R. 230(l); cf. L.R. 220 (regarding pleadings, amendments to pleadings must be complete in
4 itself without reference to prior or superseded pleadings) . Additionally, by separate order, the
5 Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the
6 likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that
7 Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction, filed October 4, 2010, October 12, 2010, and
8 December 20, 2010, are denied.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
3b142a

May 3, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2