David Bennett v. Tom Lopez, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Multiple motions are before the Court, and are addressed below. 20 Plaintiff moved for disqualification of the undersigned, claiming, among other things, that 21 he did not consent to a magistrate judge.1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, a magistrate judge shall 22 disqualify herself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned or 23 where she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. In plaintiff’s motion for 24 disqualification, he speculates that the undersigned is biased against plaintiff. The Court does not 25 find disqualification is appropriate in this matter. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for 26 disqualification (ECF No. 19) is denied. 27 1 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 2 On January 5, 2026, plaintiff filed his third motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 3 No. 18.) However, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on November 17, 4 2025. (ECF No. 10.) Thus, plaintiff’s motion is duplicative and is denied. Plaintiff shall refrain 5 from filing further motions to proceed in forma pauperis. 7 On November 10, 2025, plaintiff filed a document styled “Motion for Preliminary 8 Injunction.” (ECF No. 16.) A preliminary injunction may be issued upon a showing “that 9 immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse 10 party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). To be entitled to preliminary 11 injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 12 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 13 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 14 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 15 (2008)). 16 Plaintiff’s filing is largely unintelligible, and parts are fantastical and cannot be assessed 17 according to the above standards. For example, plaintiff claims that unidentified persons are 18 glorifying child molesters (id. at 8), and that he wants to press charges on inmates (id. at 9). 19 Plaintiff mentions a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 20 (“HIPAA”). HIPAA, however, does not provide any private right of action. U.S. v. Streich, 560 21 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2009); Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th 22 Cir. 2007) (“HIPAA itself provides no right of action.”). Accordingly, plaintiff cannot state a 23 claim under HIPAA. Further, since plaintiff’s filing, he has been transferred to the Atascadero 24 State Hospital. Because plaintiff is no longer housed at the Yolo County Jail, any urgent claim 25 concerning conditions at the jail are now moot. 26 In addition, procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief 27 only if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. 28 See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one 1 “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of 2 summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must 3 appear to defend.”). Here, plaintiff does not yet have a cognizable pleading on file, and no 4 defendant has been served with process. Until defendants have been served with process, this 5 Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, and may not grant injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 65(d)(2); Murphy Bros, Inc., 526 U.S. at 350. 7 Thus, because plaintiff’s filing is insufficient to be construed as a motion for injunctive 8 relief, plaintiff’s “motion” (ECF No. 16) is denied without prejudice to renewal upon a proper 9 showing. 11 In plaintiff’s notice of change of address, plaintiff seeks a certificate of appealability 12 which he also directs to numerous other cases he has filed. The order plaintiff appears to 13 challenge was not filed in this action, and therefore his motion is denied as it was improvidently 14 filed in this action. 16 On November 17, 2025, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff was granted 17 thirty days’ leave to file an amended complaint that did not exceed 20 pages. (ECF No. 10.) On 18 December 12, 2025, plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days to file his amended complaint. 19 (ECF No. 15.) That deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 20 Considering plaintiff’s transfer, as well as the pending motions, the Court will grant plaintiff one 21 final extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that no further 22 extensions of time will be granted, and his failure to file an amended complaint will result in a 23 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification (ECF No. 19) is denied. 27 2. Plaintiff’s third motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 18) is denied as 28 duplicative. 1 3. Plaintiff's December 22, 2025 “motion” (ECF No. 16) is denied without prejudice. 2 4. Plaintiff's motion for certificate of appealability (ECF No. 20) is denied. 3 5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 4 that complies with the November 17, 2025 screening order. No further extensions of 5 time will be granted. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in a 6 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 7 8 | Dated: April 3, 2026 eq - S$ . CHI SOO KIM 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] /1/benn3033.mpi+ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28