Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00318/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00318-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

 Currently before the court is a motion by defendants County of Merced et al. 

(“Defendants”) for injunction against plaintiff Eugene E. Forte (“Plaintiff”) to prevent Plaintiff 

from continuing to harass Defendants through the filing of claims against parties that have been 

previously dismissed with prejudice on grounds that were previously alleged and found by the 

court to be meritless. As Defendants note, Plaintiff filed an action on January 28, 2015, alleging 

claims against defendants who had been dismissed with prejudice from this case and based on 

facts that were found by this court to fail to state claims upon which relief could be granted. 

While Defendants’ motion is well reasoned and well supported by both law and fact, the court is 

presently very reluctant to take any action that would impair or complicate proceedings currently 

underway before a different judge. The court notes that Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per and the 

action filed on January 28, 2015, is therefore subject to screening by the court prior to any 

response being required by Defendants. The court is currently of the opinion that the screening 

function at this point provides most, if not all, of the protection against litigious harassment that 

would be provided by an injunctive order. The court is therefore of the opinion that the least 

EUGENE E. FORTE,

Plaintiff

v.

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Doc. #’s 362 & 373 

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 376 Filed 09/30/15 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

2

intrusive and therefore appropriate course of action at this time is to deny Defendants’ motion for 

injunctive relief without prejudice. 

 THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to enjoin Plaintiff from 

further filing is hereby DENIED without prejudice. This motion may be renewed upon resolution 

of Plaintiff’s currently pending in Case Number 15-cv-0147 KJM BAM. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 29, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM Document 376 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2