1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:25-cv-3033 TLN CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TOM LOPEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought 18 under

. Two motions are before the Court. 19 I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 20 On December 1, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the November 14 and 21 17, 2025 orders. (ECF No. 12.) 22 In the November 17, 2025 order, the Court screened plaintiff’s complaint, finding 23 plaintiff’s allegations indecipherable, and dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended 24 complaint that did not exceed 20 pages. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration 25 does not clearly identify allegations that would state a cognizable civil rights claim, despite the 26 Court providing plaintiff with the standards governing putative claims possibly alleged in his 27 original complaint. As such, plaintiff fails to rectify the deficiencies identified in the screening 28 order. Plaintiff refers to “nonstop retaliation, nonstop excessive noise, nonstop threats, nonstop 1 privacy violations, nonstop failure to protect, nonstop torture, and involuntary medication.” (Id. 2 at 7.) But as explained in the Court’s screening order, plaintiff must identify an individual 3 responsible for the alleged violation, and provide specific facts demonstrating that such individual 4 violated plaintiff’s rights.1 Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the November 17, 2025 5 screening order is denied. Local Rule 230(j); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. 6 Similarly, plaintiff’s motion to reconsider fails to rectify the deficiencies identified in the 7 November 14, 2025 order addressing plaintiff’s putative motion for injunctive relief.2 Plaintiff 8 still has no operative pleading on file. And no defendant has yet been served. 9 Plaintiff claims this Court failed to apply the “three strikes” provision of 18 U.S.C. 10 § 1915(g) and evaluate the “imminent danger” exception. (ECF No. 12 at 1-2.) However, the 11 Court did not find that plaintiff’s action was barred by § 1915(g); indeed, plaintiff’s motion to 12 proceed in forma pauperis was granted. (ECF No. 10.) Therefore, there was no need to evaluate 13 any exception to § 1915(g). 14 At bottom, plaintiff is advised that this action cannot proceed until plaintiff files an 15 amended complaint that complies with the Court’s November 17, 2025 order. In order to assist 16 plaintiff in filing a pleading that identifies responsible individuals, and the alleged violations 17 plaintiff intends to pursue, plaintiff is required to file his amended complaint on the Court’s 18 § 1983 complaint form, and the amended complaint may not exceed 20 pages. (ECF No. 10 at 19 10.) Because plaintiff’s deadline will soon expire, the Court will sua sponte grant plaintiff an 20 extension of time to file his amended complaint on the Court’s form. 21 For all these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied, and plaintiff is

22 1 Plaintiff argues that he is not required to demonstrate “actual injury” because he is a pretrial 23 detainee. (ECF No. 12 at 8.) Plaintiff is mistaken. The actual injury requirement for an access to courts claim applies to pretrial detainee. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d at 936 (affirming 24 summary judgment of pretrial detainee’s access to courts claim where detainee “did not allege injury, such as an inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge, stemming from the 25 restrictions on his access to the law library”).

26 2 Plaintiff correctly points out that the November 14, 2025 order did not use plaintiff’s correct 27 first name, citing Jonathan Bennett instead of David Bennett (ECF No. 9 at 1). The Court inadvertently used the wrong first name, and will direct the Clerk of the Court to interlineate the 28 first name “David” in place of “Jonathan.” 1 granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the 2 provisions of the November 17, 2025 screening order. (ECF No. 10.) 3 II. RENEWED MOTION 4 On December 4, 2025, plaintiff filed a document styled “Motion for Guardian ad litem 5 and Preliminary Injunction.” (ECF No. 14.) However, plaintiff’s filing is again not a proper 6 motion, but rather another running commentary on things that have happened to plaintiff since his 7 return from the state hospital.3 (Id. at 1-6.) Plaintiff does not identify what relief he seeks, or 8 otherwise address any of the elements required to seek injunctive relief.4 Even liberally 9 construed, the Court cannot construe plaintiff’s filing as a motion for injunctive relief. 10 Further, plaintiff’s filing is procedurally defective. A federal district court may issue 11 emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 12 jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.,

344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that 14 capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time 15 within which the party served must appear to defend.”). Here, plaintiff’s complaint was 16 dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff has not yet filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 17 14.) Therefore, no operative pleading is on file. No defendant has been served with process. 18 Until defendants have been served with process, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, 19 and may not grant any injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Murphy Bros, Inc., 526 20 U.S. at 350. 21 Accordingly, because plaintiff’s filing is insufficient to be construed as a motion for

22 3 Plaintiff contends that he is unable to obtain paper. However, the instant filing consists of six 23 pages, two of which bear only his name, inmate number, cell number, and address. (ECF No. 14 at 4, 6.) Further, this record amply demonstrates plaintiff has access to paper. (ECF No. 1 at 1- 24 65); 5 at 1-4; 8 at 1-2; 12 at 1-26; 14 at 1-6.)

25 4 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008). To qualify for injunctive relief, plaintiff must 26 demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that he will suffer 27 irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

. A deficiency in any element precludes relief.

at 28 23. 1 | injunctive relief, plaintiffs “motion” (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice. 2 Finally, plaintiffs reference to a motion for guardian ad litem, without more, is 3 || insufficient. In addition, plaintiff has previously sought and been denied the appointment of a 4 | guardian ad litem in other civil rights actions, as explained on August 12, 2025, by the assigned 5 || magistrate judge, who also recommended the motion for appointment of guardian ad litem be 6 || denied. See Bennett v. Newsom, No. 2:24-cv-0005 DAD EFB P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2025) (ECF 7 || No. 16 at 5-7). Those findings and recommendations were adopted in full on September 15, 8 | 2025, and plaintiffs motion for the appointment of guardian ad litem was denied by the district 9 || court. Bennett v. Newsom, No. 2:24-cv-0005 DAD EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025). 10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 12) is denied. 12 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 13 that complies with the provisions of the November 17, 2025 screening order (ECF No. 14 10). 15 3. Plaintiff's December 4, 2025 motion (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice. 16 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to interlineate the first name “David” in place of 17 “Jonathan” in the November 14, 2025 order (ECF No. 9 at 1). 18 19 | Dated: December 11, 2025 ry _- Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 71 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 /1/benn3033.rec 23 24 25 26 27 28