Forte v. County of Merced et al

Filing 376

ORDER Denying Defendants' 362 Motion For Injunction Without Prejudice, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/29/2015. (It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to enjoin Plaintiff from further filing is hereby DENIED without prejudice. This motion may be renewed upon resolution of Plaintiff's currently pending in Case Number 15-cv-0147 KJM BAM. 373 Resolved.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

EUGENE E. FORTE,

9
10

Plaintiff
v.

11

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,

12

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR INJUNCTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Doc. #’s 362 & 373

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

Currently before the court is a motion by defendants County of Merced et al.
(“Defendants”) for injunction against plaintiff Eugene E. Forte (“Plaintiff”) to prevent Plaintiff
from continuing to harass Defendants through the filing of claims against parties that have been
previously dismissed with prejudice on grounds that were previously alleged and found by the
court to be meritless. As Defendants note, Plaintiff filed an action on January 28, 2015, alleging
claims against defendants who had been dismissed with prejudice from this case and based on
facts that were found by this court to fail to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
While Defendants’ motion is well reasoned and well supported by both law and fact, the court is
presently very reluctant to take any action that would impair or complicate proceedings currently
underway before a different judge. The court notes that Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per and the
action filed on January 28, 2015, is therefore subject to screening by the court prior to any
response being required by Defendants. The court is currently of the opinion that the screening
function at this point provides most, if not all, of the protection against litigious harassment that
would be provided by an injunctive order. The court is therefore of the opinion that the least

1

intrusive and therefore appropriate course of action at this time is to deny Defendants’ motion for

2

injunctive relief without prejudice.

3
4

THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to enjoin Plaintiff from

5

further filing is hereby DENIED without prejudice. This motion may be renewed upon resolution

6

of Plaintiff’s currently pending in Case Number 15-cv-0147 KJM BAM.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 29, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2