Backus v. State of California
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/3/11 DENYING without prejudice 20 Motion for TRO. Should plaintiff wish to request a temporary restraining order, plaintiff must follow all of the requirements stated in Eastern District Local Rule 231. Requests for temporary restraining orders that fail to comply with these specific procedural requirements may be summarily denied. (Meuleman, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BARTLEY S. BACKUS,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
No. 2:11-cv-01672 JAM KJN PS
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
15
Defendant.
ORDER
/
16
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel in this action.1 On
17
18
June 29, 2011, through Findings and Recommendations, the undersigned recommended that
19
plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 3.) The undersigned’s proposed Findings
20
and Recommendations are currently pending before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Id.)
21
On November 3, 2011, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for TRO.”
22
(Dkt. No. 20.) The document describes the same sorts of conduct alleged in plaintiff’s pleading,
23
namely, the use of “cyber programs to . . . assault and batter me with steady and pulsating
24
signals.” (Id. at 20.) The document also attaches newspaper clippings (id. at 3, 11-12), a
25
1
26
This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1
“Detailed History for Police Call” made by plaintiff to report “pulsating RF waves” that he has
2
suffered “for 8 years” (id. at 4), a handwritten letter from plaintiff to a jury commissioner
3
regarding these “assaults” (id. at 5), a textbook page with a circled excerpt regarding a supreme
4
case addressing an “Eavesdrop statute” (id. at 8), among other attachments.
5
Plaintiff’s “Motion for TRO” does not comply with to the court’s Local Rules.
6
Eastern District Local Rule 231(c) provides, in part, that “[n]o hearing on a temporary restraining
7
order will normally be set unless” the party seeking emergency relief files documents with the
8
request for relief that include: “a brief on all relevant legal issues presented by the motion;” “an
9
affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury;” “an affidavit detailing the notice or
10
efforts to effect notice to the affected parties or counsel or showing good cause why notice
11
should not be given;” “a proposed temporary restraining order with a provision for a bond;” and
12
“a proposed order with blanks for fixing the time and date for hearing a motion for preliminary
13
injunction, the date for the filing of responsive papers, amount of the bond, if any, and the date
14
and hour of issuance.” See E. Dist. Local Rule 231(c)(3)-(7).2 Plaintiff has filed none of these
15
documents. Accordingly, plaintiff’s “Motion for TRO” is procedurally improper and is denied
16
without prejudice.
17
Although plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in this action, he is nonetheless
18
required to follow the court’s local rules, the court’s orders, and the Federal Rules of Civil
19
Procedure. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow
20
a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,
21
567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
22
litigants.”).
23
////
24
////
25
2
26
The Eastern District Local Rules are available on the court’s website,
www.caed.uscourts.gov, and also through the office of the Clerk of the Court.
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
Should plaintiff wish to request a temporary restraining order, plaintiff must
3
follow all of the requirements stated in Eastern District Local Rule 231. Requests for temporary
4
restraining orders that fail to comply with these specific procedural requirements may be
5
summarily denied.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 3, 2011
8
9
10
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
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?
