Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01191/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01191-2/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

-1- 06cv1191

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDAL RUIZ,

CDC# V-00678

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06 CV 1191 JM (AJB) 

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER AND

OVERRULING OBJECTION TO

PURPORTED DUPLICATIVE

COMPLAINT

[Docket No. 12]

vs.

Cpt. ESQUIBEL, et al.,

Defendants. 

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Ex Parte Application for Order; Objection to

Purported Duplicative Complaint. See Docket No. 12. Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this

§ 1983 action. On June 5, 2006, Plaintiff filed his original complaint, which was dismissed sua sponte

on September 22, 2006 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Docket

No. 8. Plaintiff was given 45 days from the order of dismissal to file a first amended complaint

(“FAC”). On October 20, 2006, Plaintiff requested an extension of the deadline for filing his FAC.

The court granted the extension and ordered Plaintiff to file his FAC no later than December 15, 2006.

See Docket No. 11. 

On November 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed the present ex parte application seeking an order

“enjoining RJD officials to relinquish plaintiff’s pro se legal materials, seized from plaintiff on

Sept. 20, 2006.” See Docket No. 12. On January 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed his FAC, nunc pro tunc to

December 20, 2006. See Docket No. 14. 

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-01191-JM-AJB Document 16 Filed 01/23/07 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- 06cv1191

Service of the summons or filing a waiver of service is effective to establish personal

jurisdiction over a defendant who, inter alia, could be subjected to the jurisdiction of a court of general

jurisdiction in the state in which the district court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). Here, the

FAC has not yet been served. Therefore, the court is without authority to issue injunctive relief

against defendants and Plaintiff’s application must be denied. See id.; see also Murphy Bros., Inc. v.

Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one "becomes a party officially,

and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other

authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to defend.").

Alternatively, to the extent the present application requests an enlargement of time within

which to file the FAC, the application is denied as moot since Plaintiff has already filed his FAC.

Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s “objection” that his previously filed case, case number

06-CV-1270 is a “phony case” that “appears to be a ‘set up’ intended to strike [Plaintiff] out under the

P.L.R.A.”, this objection is without merit. Plaintiff has provided no reasons as to why 06-CV-1270

is a “phony case” or otherwise not a case brought by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “objection”

is overruled. 

For the foregoing reasons, the ex parte application is DENIED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-01191-JM-AJB Document 16 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2