Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02531/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02531-9/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.

Defendants. 

________________________________/

No. 2:07-cv-02531-ATG

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTIONS

On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff Luis Valenzuela Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion

for Appointment of Counsel. (Docket #61). Plaintiff filed a similar motion on December 28,

2009, which the Court denied January 12, 2010. (Docket #54; Docket #55). Plaintiff's second

Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (Docket # 59). 

The Court previously ordered Plaintiff, if he wished to amend his Complaint, to seek leave of

the court and include a description of how the proposed amended complaint differs from the

presently operative complaint. (See Docket # 49; Docket # 53; Docket # 55). Though Plaintiff

did not attach a copy of his proposed amended complaint, he states that his "amended complaint

is nothing more than a clearer repeat of his previously amended complaint and the ordered

Case 2:07-cv-02531-ATG Document 64 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 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

supplemental complaint, with the necessary and recently obtained more specific facts and issues

. . . ." (Decl. Rodriguez (Docket # 59) ¶ 10). Leave to file an amended complaint drafted in

accordance with the description in the Motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint impliedly asks the Court for

assistance with the discovery rules. (Docket #59 at 13-14). Plaintiff is referred to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 26 for information on discovery.

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction, and a Motion

to Supplement the Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction. (Docket # 50; Docket

#63). Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement is GRANTED, and the Court has considered both

Motions.

Plaintiff is not entitled to a permanent injunction at this point in the proceedings. 

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) that he is likely to

succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is

in the public interest. Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Here, Plaintiff has not

established a likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, Plaintiff has been moved from

Mule Creek State Prison to Kern Valley State Prison, and therefore many of Plaintiff's requests

are moot. See Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, Plaintiff's

Motion for Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for a

hearing on this Motion is likewise DENIED.

Dated: March 11, 2010

 /s/ Alfred T. Goodwin 

_____________________

ALFRED T. GOODWIN.

United States Circuit Judge

Sitting by designation

Case 2:07-cv-02531-ATG Document 64 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 2