Walker v. Mohadjer et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 01/16/14 vacating 53 Motion for TRO. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P

v.

ORDER

MOHADJER, Clinical Psychologist, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

On January 7, 2014, plaintiff’s recent motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction was

19

denied. ECF No. 50.1 It has just been noted in this court’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF

20

No. 52), filed on January 14, 2014, that this denial likely crossed in the mail with yet another

21

request for immediate injunctive relief, filed on January 10, 2014 (ECF No. 51).2 In the findings

22

and recommendations recommending denial of the January 10 motion for immediate injunctive

23

relief, the undersigned observed that plaintiff was continuing his pattern of repeatedly filing

24

deficient motions for injunctive relief, recounting in each filing the most recent events related to

25

his housing and classification status. ECF No. 52 at 1. Plaintiff has now submitted yet another

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff has appealed an earlier denial of his requests for immediate injunctive relief. ECF Nos.
41, 42.
2
In a typographical error, the date was therein misidentified as January 10, 2013.
1

1

motion for a TRO, which is undated and was filed in the court’s docket on January 15, 2014.

2

ECF No. 53. In this two-page putative “motion,” lacking exhibits and any form of a supporting

3

affidavit, plaintiff repeats his allegations that he has been subjected to “lock up” in Ad Seg and

4

put up for transfer based on false claims by certain staff that he poses a safety risk. Plaintiff’s

5

perpetually histrionic claims have been fully addressed in the just-issued findings and

6

recommendations. His repeated filings amount to an abuse of process about which he has been

7

previously cautioned. Plaintiff’s latest request is defective in form and substance, and entirely

8

duplicative of his previous request. For all these reasons, it will be vacated from the court’s

9

calendar.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the duplicative motion for a TRO at ECF

11

No. 53 be vacated from the court’s calendar.

12

DATED: January 16, 2014

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