(PC) Cuellar v. Aramark

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TRAVIS JUSTIN CUELLAR, No. 1:24-cv-01196-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT 13 v. (ECF No. 11) ARAMARK, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s November 7, 2024, order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing the Madera County Jail to submit his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff contends that because the Madera County Jail is a named Defendant in this action, the Court has jurisdiction over it.

24 Pursuant to Rule 60(b), the Court may relieve a party from a final judgement or order “for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence ...; (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; ... or (6) any | other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6).

2 First, Plaintiff's motion for a court order to submit his application to proceed in forma || pauperis is moot because Plaintiff submitted an application on November 8, 2024, which was | granted on November 12, 2024. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) Second, contrary to Plaintiffs contention, the | Court does not currently have contrary personal jurisdiction over any of the named Defendants in | this action as the Court has yet to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 1915. Thus, until | one or more of the defendants have been served with process, a court is generally held to lack | personal jurisdiction over them and thus may not grant injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. | 65(d)(2); Nunez v. Diaz, No. 1:19-cv-00686-AWI-SAB (PC), 2019 WL 4127205, at *2 (citing | Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringin, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999)). Accordingly, | Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.

B IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _ November 19, 2024 STANLEY A. BOONE 15 United States Magistrate Judge