Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06764/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06764-8/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

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 6764 REC WMW P

vs. ORDER RE MOTIONS 

(DOCUMENTS 27, 32)

D. BRAVO, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

On March 25, 2005, an order was entered, dismissing the operative pleading in

this case, and granting plaintiff leave to amend. On April 5, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to

the order. On April 28, 2005, an order was entered by the District Judge, construing the 

objections as a motion for consideration and denying reconsideration on the ground that the

March 25 order is not a final order. th

On May 23, 1005, the Magistrate Judge granted plaintiff an extension of time in

which to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff failed to do so, and on July 5, 2005, findings

and recommendations were entered, recommending dismissal for failure to state a claim. On

July 19, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and objections to the findings and

Case 1:03-cv-06764-LJO-WMW Document 42 Filed 03/24/06 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

2

recommendations. August 17, 2005, an order was entered by the Magistrate Judge, vacating the

findings and recommendations and granting plaintiff an extension of time in which to file a

second amended complaint. On August 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary

injunction. On August 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a document titled as an objection to the

participation in this case by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. 

To date, plaintiff has failed to file a second amended complaint. As to plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment, because there is no operative pleading, the motion is denied. The

complaint on which this action proceeds fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

As to plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, plaintiff supports his request with a two page

declaration that restates generally the allegations of the first amended complaint. To prevail, the

moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of

hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing

Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula

International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Hartikka v. United States, 754

F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). Because the operative complaint in this action fails to state a

claim for relief, the court finds that the above standard has not been met. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed on July 19, 2005, is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction filed on August 18, 2005, is

denied.

3. This action is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06764-LJO-WMW Document 42 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 2