Jeanette Turner v. County of Butte, et al.

Opinion

JEANETTE TURNER, Case No. 2:26-cv-01061-TLN-CSK (PS) Plaintiff, ORDER v. (ECF No. 1) COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Jeanette Turner is proceeding in this action pro se.1 Upon review of the record, it appears that Plaintiff Jeanette Turner attempted to include an “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction” within Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 18-32.) Plaintiff’s filing is unclear as to whether Plaintiff intends to seek emergency relief from the Court. If so, Plaintiff must file a motion for a temporary restraining order as a separate docket entry. Plaintiff is reminded that a motion for a temporary restraining order must comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 231 of this Court’s Local Rules.2 Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with procedural

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