Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02157/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02157-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONROE DETENTION CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-2157 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his right to access the court has been denied, he has been 

retaliated against, and he has not received adequate mental health treatment. Presently before the 

court is plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 15) and second motion for injunctive 

relief (ECF No. 18). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will deny the motions for 

protective order and injunctive relief.

I. Background

By order dated April 3, 2023, the undersigned screened and dismissed plaintiff’s 

complaint. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff was ordered to submit a properly completed in forma 

pauperis application and an amended complaint within thirty days. (Id. at 15.) Those thirty days 

have passed, and plaintiff has not submitted an in forma pauperis application, paid the filing fee

or filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff has submitted a second motion for injunctive relief (ECF 

Case 2:22-cv-02157-DJC-SCR Document 22 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 4
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

No. 18) and objections to the court’s April 3, 2023 order (ECF No. 20). However, he has not 

filed an amended complaint and he has not paid the filing fee or submitted a properly completed 

in forma pauperis application. 

It appears plaintiff filed the motion for protective order and motion for injunctive relief 

before he received the court’s April 3, 2023 order. The undersigned will address plaintiff’s 

motions as set forth below. However, plaintiff is advised that future motions will not be 

addressed unless plaintiff files an amended complaint and either pays the filing fee or submits a 

properly completed in forma pauperis application.

II. Protective Order

Plaintiff states he is seeking a protective order “on anything sensitive in his ‘social 

history’ made in his previous motion for injunctive relief.” (ECF No. 15.) The court construes 

plaintiff’s motion as a motion to redact or seal his prior filing.

To the extent plaintiff seeks to file documents under seal or to redact certain information 

from a filing on the docket, he is advised that any request for sealing or redaction must comply 

with Local Rules 140 (redaction) and 141 (sealing). Plaintiff is further advised that there is a 

strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 

F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). Generally, if a party seeks to seal a judicial record, the party 

bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported 

by specific factual findings” to justify sealing the records at issue. Kamakana v. City of County 

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, “[t]he mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz v. 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that any prior filing should be sealed or 

redacted under Local Rules 140 or 141. Accordingly, the court will deny the motion for 

protective order.

////

////

Case 2:22-cv-02157-DJC-SCR Document 22 Filed 05/26/23 Page 2 of 4
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

3

III. Motion for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking injunctive relief. (ECF No. 18.) Therein he states that 

the court has failed to act and respond to his previous filing. (ECF No. 18 at 1.) However, as 

stated above, it appears he submitted this motion before he received the undersigned’s April 4, 

2023 order denying his prior motion for injunctive relief without prejudice. (ECF No. 17.) 

As was the case with prior filings, the court cannot discern what specific relief plaintiff 

seeks in his motion. Thus, the undersigned will deny the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff is 

advised that in any future motion seeking injunctive relief he should provide a short and plain 

statement explaining the specific relief sought. Additionally, the undersigned cannot grant 

injunctive relief unless plaintiff can show a likelihood of success on the merits. Because plaintiff 

has not yet filed an amended complaint, the court cannot make any determination about plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits

Plaintiff states in his motion that he is unable to serve all parties or pay the filing fee. 

(ECF No. 18 at 1.) Plaintiff is advised that he was not ordered to pay the filing fee. Rather, 

plaintiff was directed to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis 

application. (ECF No. 17 at 1-2, 17-18.) Plaintiff may proceed with this action without 

prepayment of fees if his in forma pauperis application shows that he does not have the funds to 

pay the fee. Plaintiff appears concerned that any request to proceed in forma pauperis will be 

denied. However, the court cannot make a determination about whether plaintiff qualifies to 

proceed in forma pauperis until he submits an application that includes a certified copy of his 

prison trust account. 

Plaintiff will be given one final opportunity to submit an in forma pauperis application. 

He is warned that failure to comply with the court’s order to either pay the filing fee or submit a 

properly completed in forma pauperis application may result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders. See E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.

Plaintiff is also advised that service of the complaint will not occur until the undersigned 

determines that the complaint contains a cognizable claim. Therefore, to the extent plaintiff’s 

request is for additional time to serve defendants, such a request will be denied as premature. 

Case 2:22-cv-02157-DJC-SCR Document 22 Filed 05/26/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERD that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 15) is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 18) is denied without prejudice;

3. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order plaintiff shall:

a. either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis 

application; and

b. file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil 

Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of 

Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to 

this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.

4. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed.

Dated: May 25, 2023

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/benn2157.pro.ord+inj

Case 2:22-cv-02157-DJC-SCR Document 22 Filed 05/26/23 Page 4 of 4