Callegari v. Lee et al

Filing 54

ORDER GRANTING 53 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING 46 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 16, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHARLES D. LEE, M.D., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________ )
CARL LEE CALLEGARI,

No. C 08-2420 MMC (PR)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Docket Nos. 46 & 53)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

On May 12, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at Salinas Valley
State Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
by medical officials at SVSP.1
On March 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which defendants
opposed on April 20, 2011. On May 6, 2011, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a
reply to defendants’ opposition (Docket No. 53) and, on May 9, 2011, filed his reply.
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is hereby GRANTED. The reply brief is deemed
timely.
On March 30, 2011, plaintiff filed an “Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief,”
seeking to preclude prison officials from retaliating against him. (Docket No. 46.) The
Court construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary

27
1

28

In April 2010, plaintiff was transferred to Corcoran State Prison, where he currently

resides.

1

restraining order (“TRO”). Plaintiff, however, has neither complied with the notice

2

requirement of Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor certified the

3

reasons for his not providing such notice, as required by Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of

4

Civil Procedure. Moreover, plaintiff seeks such relief against individuals who are not parties

5

to this action. A TRO or preliminary injunction is only available against an adverse party.

6

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a),(b). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is hereby

7

DENIED.

8

This order terminates Docket Nos. 46 and 53.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

DATED: May 16, 2011
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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