Menefield v. Yates et al

Filing 57

ORDER REQUIRING Defendants to File a Response to Plaintiff's 12 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/10/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

CASE NO.

1:10-cv-2406-MJS (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

v.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

(ECF No. 12)
Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff James Fredrick Menefield (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se
16
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to
17
jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 6 & 7.)
18
The action is proceeding against Defendants based on a number of alleged
19
violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
20
Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
21
On February 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No.
22

12.)1 Since then, the Court has screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No.

23
22) and ordered service on Defendants (ECF No. 36). It appears that all Defendants have
24
been served, but not yet filed any response to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
25
Accordingly, Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED to file a response to Plaintiff’s
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff has also filed another m otion for a prelim inary injunction (ECF No. 39), but it m erely only
refers back to the original m otion. Accordingly, the Court will disregard Plaintiff’s second m otion for a
prelim inary injunction and issue an order to that effect.

-1-

1

motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 12) within thirty days of entry of this Order.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:
ci4d6

February 10, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-