Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00244/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00244-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00244-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS AND 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Docs. 15, 16, 18)

ORDER STRIKING RESPONSE

(Doc. 17)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING

FEE, AND DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

(Doc. 14)

I. Miscellaneous Motions

Plaintiff Ernest Miller, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 6, 2009. On September 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion

seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce a settlement agreement in another action, and on

November 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction mandating the return

of his legal property and the award of money damages. Further, on October 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed

a motion seeking an extension of time to show cause, and on October 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a

response to an order to show cause.

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-00244-SMS Document 20 Filed 06/10/10 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

The pendency of this action does not entitle Plaintiff to seek the relief requested in his

motions for preliminary injunctions, and the motions are denied. E.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,

461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S.Ct. 1142,

1149 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff previously responded to the Court’s order to show cause, and the Court issued a

ruling after considering those responses. (Docs. 6, 9, 10, 13.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an

extension of time to file another response is denied, and the subsequently filed response is stricken

from the record.

II. Failure to Pay Filing Fee

On September 11, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and ordered Plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full

within thirty days. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to pay the filing fee, this action would be

dismissed. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Therefore,

this action shall be dismissed.

III. Order

For the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctions and for an extension of time are

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause is STRICKEN from the record;

3. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the

filing fee in compliance with the Court’s order of September 11, 2009; and

4. The Clerk’s Office shall enter judgment in accordance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00244-SMS Document 20 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 2