Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193-11/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 

JEFFREY E. WALKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MOHADJER, Clinical Psychologist, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P 

ORDER 

 

 On January 7, 2014, plaintiff’s recent motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction was 

denied. ECF No. 50.1

 It has just been noted in this court’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF 

No. 52), filed on January 14, 2014, that this denial likely crossed in the mail with yet another 

request for immediate injunctive relief, filed on January 10, 2014 (ECF No. 51).2

 In the findings 

and recommendations recommending denial of the January 10 motion for immediate injunctive 

relief, the undersigned observed that plaintiff was continuing his pattern of repeatedly filing 

deficient motions for injunctive relief, recounting in each filing the most recent events related to 

his housing and classification status. ECF No. 52 at 1. Plaintiff has now submitted yet another 

 

1

 Plaintiff has appealed an earlier denial of his requests for immediate injunctive relief. ECF Nos. 

41, 42. 

2

 In a typographical error, the date was therein misidentified as January 10, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 54 Filed 01/17/14 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

motion for a TRO, which is undated and was filed in the court’s docket on January 15, 2014. 

ECF No. 53. In this two-page putative “motion,” lacking exhibits and any form of a supporting 

affidavit, plaintiff repeats his allegations that he has been subjected to “lock up” in Ad Seg and 

put up for transfer based on false claims by certain staff that he poses a safety risk. Plaintiff’s 

perpetually histrionic claims have been fully addressed in the just-issued findings and 

recommendations. His repeated filings amount to an abuse of process about which he has been 

previously cautioned. Plaintiff’s latest request is defective in form and substance, and entirely 

duplicative of his previous request. For all these reasons, it will be vacated from the court’s 

calendar. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the duplicative motion for a TRO at ECF 

No. 53 be vacated from the court’s calendar. 

DATED: January 16, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 54 Filed 01/17/14 Page 2 of 2