Mitchell v. Beard et al

Filing 16

ORDER DISREGARDING Plaintiff's 14 Supplement to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/13/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOHN E. MITCHELL,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[ECF No. 14]

J. BEARD, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:15-cv-01512 DLB PC

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
Plaintiff John E. Mitchell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

16

1
17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 5, 2015.

On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On November 4,

18

19 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction for lack of standing. On
20 January 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his motion for preliminary injunction. In his
21 pleading, Plaintiff states this to be his second supplement to his original motion. Plaintiff is
22 advised that his motion for preliminary injunction was denied on November 4, 2015, as noted
23 above. Therefore, the supplement will be disregarded. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to renew his
24 motion or request the supplement be considered a second motion for preliminary injunction, his
25 request is denied.
As discussed in the Court’s previous order, Plaintiff must demonstrate he has standing to

26

27 seek preliminary injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct.
28

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on October 16, 2015.

1 1142 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). For the same reasons
2 stated in the Court’s previous order of November 4, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek the relief
3 requested in his supplement to his motion. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
4
5

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s supplement to his motion for

6 preliminary injunction is DISREGARDED. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to renew his motion or
7 request the supplement be considered a new motion for preliminary injunction, his request is
8 DENIED.
9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 13, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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