Brown v. Reif et al

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/26/19 STRIKING 86 , 87 , 90 , 91 plaintiff's motions from the docket as filed in violation of this court's 11/09/18 order. Plaintiff is once again cautioned against filing repe titious motions. Once plaintiff files a motion, he should file no additional motions UNTIL THE COURT RULES. Defendants are ordered to file a supplemental response to plaintiffs June 6, 2019 motion for a preliminary injunction within 14 days from the date of this order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

No. 2:18-cv-01088-KJM-CKD-P

v.

ORDER

C. REIF, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

20

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 9, 2018 this court limited plaintiff to filing

21

“one dispositive motion… and one reply to any opposition” based on his pattern of repetitious

22

filings. ECF No. 44. Since that time, the court has struck two repetitious pleadings that were

23

filed by plaintiff in violation of this order. See ECF Nos. 64, 77. Currently, plaintiff has two

24

pending motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 86, 91), two motions for an extension of time

25

(ECF Nos. 87, 90), a motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 92), and a separate request for

26

an emergency transfer (ECF No. 95) which is the same relief requested in his motion for

27

injunctive relief. The court will strike all motions except the motion for a preliminary injunction

28
1

1

pursuant to the court’s November 9, 2018 order limiting plaintiff’s filings to one dispositive

2

motion at a time.

3

With respect to the motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff generally alleges that he

4

fears for his safety because the three defendants named in the instant lawsuit work in the building

5

next to plaintiff’s cell at CSP-Sacramento. ECF No. 92 at 2. He further alleges that when

6

defendant Gomez saw plaintiff “the other day” on the yard, defendant Gomez “took his finger and

7

went across his neck as though he was telling me I’m dead.” Id. On June 13, 2019, defendants

8

filed an opposition to the motion for injunctive relief. See ECF No. 94. However, this opposition

9

did not contain any declarations by defendants addressing plaintiff’s specific allegations or any

10

other declarations pertaining to plaintiff’s current mental state. Subsequent to defendants’

11

opposition, plaintiff specifically alleged that defendant Gomez approached his cell on June 7,

12

2019 and told plaintiff that if he came out of his cell defendant Gomez would kill him with his

13

bare hands….” ECF No. 95 at 6. In light of the seriousness of plaintiff’s current allegations, the

14

court finds it necessary to order defendants to file a supplemental response to plaintiff’s current

15

motion for a preliminary injunction.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 86, 87, 90, 91) are stricken from the docket as filed in

18

violation of this court’s November 9, 2018 order. Plaintiff is once again cautioned

19

against filing repetitious motions. Once plaintiff files a motion, he should file no

20

additional motions UNTIL THE COURT RULES.

21

2. Defendants are ordered to file a supplemental response to plaintiff’s June 6, 2019

22

motion for a preliminary injunction within 14 days from the date of this order.

23

Dated: June 26, 2019

24
25
26
27

12/brow1088.suppresponse.docx

28
2