Alvarez v. Hashemi
Filing
33
ORDER DISREGARDING 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief and Directing Clerk to Serve on Plaintiff a Copy of This Order and the Order Appointing Counsel 31 signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/13/2017. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RAUL ALVAREZ,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
1:16-cv-00203-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
v.
(Doc. 32)
NASTRAN HASHEMI,
13
Defendant.
14
15
Plaintiff, Raul Alvares, is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, who has
16
previously been proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was recently
17
granted; Plaintiff has been represented since August 31, 2017, and is no longer pro se.
18
30, 31.)
19
(Docs.
On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief in which he
20
states he believes he will be transferred, and requests that he only be transferred to Chino and that
21
he not be separated from his legal property. (Doc. 32.) It appears that Plaintiff was not served a
22
copy of the order which identified his newly appointed counsel, and is unaware that counsel was
23
appointed after Plaintiff filed his motion. Since Plaintiff is represented, he should refrain from
24
filing documents and should only contact the Court through his attorney.
25
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
1. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed on September 11, 2017, (Doc. 32), is
DISREGARDED;1 and
27
28
1
Nothing in this order prohibits Plaintiff’s counsel from filing a substantially similar motion if deemed necessary.
1
1
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve on Plaintiff a copy of this order and the
2
order appointing counsel which issued on August 31, 2017 (Doc. 31).
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 13, 2017
/s/
6
Sheila K. Oberto
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
.
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?