Haithcox v. Dutton et al
ORDER denying 9 Motion. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 3/22/2017. Mailed to Haithcox (TAG)
MAR 22 2C:?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
TIMOTHY CRAIG HAITHCOX,
SHERIFF LEO DUTTON, UNDERSHERIFF
DAVE RAU, CAP. JASON GRIMMIS, SGT.
SCOTT FURGERSEN, COUNTY ATT. LEO
GALLAGHER, DEP. COUNTY ATT.
MELISSA BROCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
TIM FOX, GOVERNOR STEVE BULLOCK,
and LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY
Plaintiff Timothy Haithcox filed a "Motion for access to Human Rights
Bureau investigator and to have video and surveillance of Pod 6 Cell 6-03 and
what is able to be seen, and pictures of the positioning of the camera system."
(Doc. 9.) The motion is construed as a request for injunctive relief pursuant to
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mr. Haithcox has not complied with the notice provisions of Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A preliminary injunctive may only be issued on
notice to the adverse party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(l). A temporary restraining order
may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party's
attorney if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the
verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result
to the applicant before the adverse party or the party's attorney can be heard in
opposition, and (2) the applicant's attorney (plaintiff himself in this case, as he
proceeds pro se) certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to
give notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be
required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b). Mr. Haithcox has not satisfied either requirement.
In addition, as a general rule courts are unable to issue orders against
individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v.
Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969); Zepeda v. United States
Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court may
issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject
matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of
persons not before the court."). Here, the Court has not obtained personal
jurisdiction over any defendant since the case is in the prescreening process
mandated by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A and therefore has not yet been served.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the "Motion for access to
Human Rights Bureau investigator and to have video and surveillance of Pod 6
Cell 6-03 and what is able to be seen, and pictures of the positioning of the camera
system." (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
At all times during the pendency of this action, Mr. Haithcox MUST
IMMEDIATELY ADVISE the Court of any change of address. A failure to do so
may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.
ll.J.day of March, 20
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?