Smith-Duroncelet v. Placer County Court et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/8/2014 DENYING 1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOEANN SMITH-DURONCELET,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-02358-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

PLACER COUNTY COURT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff Joeann Smith-Duroncelet (“Plaintiff”) initiated this

18

action and moved for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff requests that the

19

Court enjoin Defendants Placer County Court, People of the State of California, and

20

Franz Stuart Sandenas (collectively, “Defendants”) from continuing a criminal case

21

against her and seeks to prevent Defendants from conducting a competency hearing.

22

Id.1 Plaintiff’s motion is deficient as filed. Local Rule 231(d), which governs the filing of

23

motions for preliminary injunctions in this district, requires that “[a]ll motions for

24

preliminary injunction . . . be accompanied by (i) briefs on all relevant legal issues to be

25

presented by the motion, (ii) affidavits in support of the motion, including affidavits on the

26

question of irreparable injury, and (iii) a proposed order with a provision for a bond.”

27
1

28

Plaintiff alleges that “[a] ‘Secret Silent Reverse Satanic Scientific Communist CULT and/or
SECT Society’ commenced ‘criminal’ proceedings against” her. ECF No. 1 at 3 (emphasis in original).

1

1

Plaintiff failed to attach any affidavits in support of her motion. Plaintiff’s failure to submit

2

any affidavits in support of her Motion is fatal.

3

Plaintiff seeks to block state court criminal proceedings that stem from her arrest

4

on April 7, 2014, and the filing of a criminal complaint against her on April 9, 2014. ECF

5

No. 1. The Court finds that the delay between Plaintiff’s arrest and the subsequent

6

commencement of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff and the filing of her “emergency

7

petition” on October 8, 2014, contradicts Plaintiff's claims of irreparable injury. See

8

Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985); see,

9

e.g., Occupy Sacramento v. City of Sacramento, 2:11–CV–02873–MCE, 2011 WL

10

5374748 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011) (denying application for TRO for twenty-five day

11

delay).2 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 1) is

12

DENIED.3

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2014

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

26
27
28

Even construed as an application for a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff’s application fails
because it is procedurally deficient. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 231(c).
3

Plaintiff is cautioned that in the future, she must scrupulously observe the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as this Court’s Local Rules and Temporary Restraining Order
Procedures prior to filing requests for extraordinary relief.

2