(PC) Felix v. Clandenin

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, No. 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. CLANDENIN, et al., Doc. 23 15 Defendant.

18 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

23 On September 18, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be denied. Doc. 12. On June 10, 2024, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations and denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Doc. 20. On August 2, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, identical to his February 28, 2024 motion for reconsideration (Doc. 17). Doc. 23.

1 The Court finds no grounds that would warrant reconsideration of the order denying | plaintiffs request for temporary restraining order. Plaintiff's complaint was screened and was | found to not state any cognizable claims.! Doc. 21. Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of | success on the merits. The Court at this time continues to lack personal jurisdiction over any staff | or employees at plaintiffs current institution or any other DSH institution, and it cannot issue an | order requiring them to take, or forbid them from taking, any action. Further, plaintiff's renewed | motion makes no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that || the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.

9 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, Doc. 23, is DENIED.

11 | TPIS SO ORDERED. _ 12 Dated: _ June 5, 2025 4h 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 | Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 28, 2025. Doc. 35. However, the magistrate | Judge’s March 13, 2025 order granting an extension of time for plaintiff to file objections to the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of his complaint, Doc. 31, also informed | plaintiff that, due to his delay and his multiplying of the proceedings, any further amended complaint would not be considered without explicit leave of the Court. See Doc. 33 at 6.

28 | Plaintiff was not granted leave to file the first amended complaint.