Michael Andrew Tater v. County of Fresno

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/3/2010. CASE CLOSED (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 v. COUNTY O F FRESNO, et al., Defend a n t s . The Cler k of Court opened this case upon pro se Plaintif f ' s filing o f a motion for preliminary injuncti o n , Doc. 1, and a request to proceed in forma pauperis , Doc. 6. A s explained in a January 26, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRI C T CO U R T FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF C A L I F O R N I A MICHAEL ANDREW TATER , Plaint i f f , 1:10-CV-00088 OWW SM S ORDER DISMISSI N G CAS E order, F e d e r a l Rule of Civil Procedure 3 provides that "[a] civ i l action is commenced by filing a complaint w i t h the cour t . " Doc. 8. Plaintif f was instru c t e d to file a complaint with i n thirty ( 3 0 ) days, or February 26, 2010, and was w a r n e d that if he failed to do so, his case would be dis m i s s e d . Id. On Februa r y 12, 2010, Pl a i n t i f f s submitted a document entitled "i n a b i l i t y to comply with court order," which in d i c a t e d that Plaintiff was "unable to sta r t the complain t " because h e has been "unable to use [hi s ] left arm." D o c . 9 at ¶1. Plaintiff explained that he filed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 his preliminar y injunction "hoping to avoid the extensive litigati o n that woul d result from filing a compla i n t . . . . " Doc. 9 a t ¶3. Plaintif f ' s motion f o r preliminary injunction can n o t be const r u e d as a co m p l a i n t . He complains in the motion that the County of Fresno illegally withhel d his vehic l e registra t i o n , assert s that he needs his vehicle t o transpor t himself to medical appointments, and me n t i o n s various laws and con s t i t u t i o n a l provisions. Howe v e r , the motion f a i l s to expl a i n the legal and factual bas e s for any clai m over which this court might have jurisd i c t i o n . Moreover , Plaintiff fails to clearly identify the targeted defendants. No matte r how compel l i n g Plaintiffs' claims of disabili t y or extrem i s , a district court is witho u t jurisdic t i o n to permit a case to proceed wi t h o u t a complain t . Se e In re Special Grand Jury, 6 7 4 F.2 d 778 , This case is DISMISSED WITH O U T 783 (9th Cir. 1982). PREJUDIC E . SO ORDER E D Dated: March 3, 201 0 /s/ O l i v e r W. Wanger Oliver W. Wang e r United States Distri c t Judge 2

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?