Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01365/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01365-8/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY ATTERBURY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1365 DAD P

vs.

LAURIE VAN DIVER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner confined in Napa State Hospital, is proceeding pro se

with this action against Laurie Van Diver, an employee of the Placer County Department of

Mental Health. Defendant Van Diver is the community program director assigned to plaintiff’s

case in El Dorado County. Plaintiff has sued her because she is responsible for designating the

facility in which plaintiff is detained pending hearings in El Dorado County. Plaintiff alleges that

defendant Van Diver always recommends that he be housed in the El Dorado County Jail, where

he was subjected to abuse, cruelty, and deliberate indifference to his medical needs in the past.

Before the court are two motions for injunctive relief filed by plaintiff. Neither

motion is accompanied by a proof of service on defendant Van Diver’s counsel, neither motion is

supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and neither motion is supported by a

declaration on the question of irreparable injury.

Case 2:05-cv-01365-DAD Document 36 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

In the motion received for filing on July 17, 2006, plaintiff requests “temporary

and permanent injunctive relief preventing the El Dorado County Sheriff from transporting him

anywhere or housing him in the El Dorado County Jail or anywhere else–a ‘hands-off’ policy.” 

(Pl.’s Mot. for Order to Show Cause, T.R.O., and Prelim. Inj. filed July 17, 2006, at 8.) In the

motion received for filing on September 18, 2006, plaintiff requests “some sort of protective

order to enable me to proceed with discovery and the other procedures in this lawsuit and ensure

that I am not punished and retaliated against by anyone by any means, including being

transported and confined in the El Dorado County Jail.” (Pl.’s Mot. for Court to Grant

Appropriate Relief filed September 18, 2006, at 8.) 

On October 20, 2005, plaintiff filed his first motion for injunctive relief in this

action. By order filed October 25, 2005, the motion was denied because it did not comply with

the requirements of Local Rule 65-231 and because plaintiff sought a broad order directed at

persons who are not parties to this action.

On March 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a second motion for injunctive relief in this

action. By order filed April 6, 2006, the motion was denied because it did not comply with the

requirements of Local Rule 65-231 and because plaintiff sought intervention in state commitment

proceedings as well as relief that goes to the merits of his claims in this action. Plaintiff sought

an order preventing defendant Van Diver and non-parties from confining him in the El Dorado

County Jail “for any reason whatsoever.” The court noted that plaintiff’s motion was not

accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities demonstrating this court’s authority to

interfere in ongoing state court proceedings, by any declaration demonstrating that plaintiff will

suffer irreparable injury if his request is not granted, or by any evidence of notice to all

individuals and entities that would be affected by the orders sought. See Local Rule 65-231.

Plaintiff has twice been advised of defects in his motions for injunctive relief. 

The two pending motions suffer from the same defects and will be denied. Plaintiff is advised

that the court will not consider any motion that is not accompanied by a proof of service showing

Case 2:05-cv-01365-DAD Document 36 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

that he served the motion on defendant’s attorney. Plaintiff is further advised that the court will

not entertain any motion for injunctive relief that is not supported by (1) a declaration under

penalty of perjury on the question of irreparable injury, (2) a memorandum of points and

authorities addressing all legal issues raised by the motion, and (3) evidence of notice to all

persons who would be affected by the order sought. See Local Rule 65-231. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 17, 2006 motion for order to show cause, temporary restraining

order, and preliminary injunction (docketed as #34) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s September 18, 2006 motion for protective order or other appropriate

relief (docketed as #35) is denied.

DATED: January 18, 2007.

DAD:13

atte1365.injmots

Case 2:05-cv-01365-DAD Document 36 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 3