Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01248-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Horace Bell is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion for an emergency restraining order and 

transfer to federal protective custody. (ECF No. 99.) 

Plaintiff submits that “this motion is based upon Plaintiff’s initial motion and the records and 

files in this case, judicial notice is requested of those records and the files. For the reasons fully stated 

and to meet the ends of justice Plaintiff request the court grant the motion.” (ECF No. 99.)

Plaintiff previously filed a motion for emergency restraining order and transfer to federal 

protective custody on February 9, 2015. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff’s motion was denied on February 11, 

2015, because “the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order prohibiting the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation from transferring Plaintiff to High Desert State Prison because such an 

order would not remedy the underlying legal claim, which involves Defendants’ past conduct.” (ECF 

HORACE THOMAS, a.k.a Horace Bell,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S HEBERLING, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND TRANSFER TO FEDERAL 

PROTECTIVE CUSTODY

[ECF No. 99]

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 113 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

No. 64, Order at 2:5-9.) (citations omitted.) Because Plaintiff’s second motion sets forth the same 

arguments and legal authority as the prior motion, it must be DENIED for the same reasons set forth in 

the February 11, 2015, order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB Document 113 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2