Moon v. O'Neill et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 10 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/21/15: NO FURTHER FILINGS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN THIS CASE. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 ADRIAN MOON, Case No. 1:15-cv-00446-LJO-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. HOLLAND, et al., (Doc. 10) Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, Adrian Moon, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on March 18, 2015. 17 This action was dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and an apparent reaction to the recent 18 closure of Plaintiff's prior action Moon v. Holland, 1:14-cv-1704-LJO-JLT (PC) ("Prior Action"). 19 (Doc. 5.) In the four short months that Plaintiff's Prior Action was pending, Plaintiff filed 20 multiple motions seeking temporary restraining orders, reconsideration of the denial of in forma 21 pauperis status, seeking sanctions, and seeking extensions of time and has variously objected 22 and/or sought reconsideration of findings and recommendations and orders that issued in this 23 action. (See id., at Docs. 4, 11, 12, 14-19, 21-24.) On April 14, 2015, an order issued 24 disregarding two motions that Plaintiff filed after this case was dismissed. (Doc. 9.) However, 25 on April 9, 2015, Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order was received by the Court, but 26 was not entered on the docket in this case until April 16, 2015 and remains pending. (Doc. 10.) 27 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 28 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. This action has been closed, so the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's request for temporary restraining order. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for emergency temporary restraining order, filed April 9, 2016 (Doc. 10), is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. Further, Plaintiff is not to construe this order as an invitation to submit further filings in this action. As stated in the previous order disregarding Plaintiff's post-judgment motions for reconsideration, NO FURTHER FILINGS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN THIS CASE. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?