Jeanette Turner v. County of Butte, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEANETTE TURNER, Case No. 2:26-cv-01061-TLN-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 1) 14 COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jeanette Turner is proceeding in this action pro se.1 Upon review of the 18 record, it appears that Plaintiff Jeanette Turner attempted to include an “Emergency 19 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction” within Plaintiff’s 20 Complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 18-32.) Plaintiff’s filing is unclear as to whether Plaintiff intends 21 to seek emergency relief from the Court. If so, Plaintiff must file a motion for a temporary 22 restraining order as a separate docket entry. 23 Plaintiff is reminded that a motion for a temporary restraining order must comply 24 with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 231 of this 25 Court’s Local Rules.2 Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with procedural

26 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 2 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 28 are available on the district court’s website: 1 || requirements for temporary restraining orders is sufficient justification to deny the 2 | motion. See Nible v. Macomber, 2024 WL 2133319, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2024) 3 || (denying TRO sought by pro se plaintiff as procedurally deficient); see, e.g., Tri-Valley 4 | CAREs v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion 5 || as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court's 6 || discretion.”). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | Dated: May 11, 2026 C iy S \U 10 CHI S00 KIM 44 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 || 8, turn.1061.26 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□