Rivera 311818 v. Shinn

D. Arizona

Rivera 311818 v. Shinn

DecidedJune 5, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-01014

StatusUnknown

This text of Rivera 311818 v. Shinn (Rivera 311818 v. Shinn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rivera 311818 v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Richard Rivera, No. CV-23-01014-PHX-KML (ASB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Non-party Carmina Carrasco filed a motion for temporary restraining order that 16 would require Richard Rivera receive copies of legal documents “in timely manner,” 17 “sufficient weekly showers,” “adequate medical care” related to an infected leg, and a 18 “JPay tablet.” (Doc. 79 at 1.) Defendants filed a response and motion to strike. (Doc. 81.) 19 According to defendants, Carrasco is not authorized to represent Rivera and the motion 20 should be stricken on that basis. Defendants also argue the underlying claims in this suit 21 involve medical care for Rivera’s retinal detachment and Carrasco’s motion impermissibly 22 seeks injunctive relief unrelated to the claims at issue. (Doc. 5 at 11.) 23 “While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, [h]e has no authority 24 to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 25 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (simplified). Carrasco therefore cannot appear and seek relief on 26 Rivera’s behalf. But even if Carrasco could, “there must be a relationship between the 27 injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 28 complaint.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). The motion seeks relief unrelated to the retinal detachment alleged in the complaint. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 79) is 5|| DENIED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 81) is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 Dated this 5th day of June, 2025. 9

LA Ata. Ye OC ft Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Richard Rivera, No. CV-23-01014-PHX-KML (ASB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Non-party Carmina Carrasco filed a motion for temporary restraining order that 16 would require Richard Rivera receive copies of legal documents “in timely manner,” 17 “sufficient weekly showers,” “adequate medical care” related to an infected leg, and a 18 “JPay tablet.” (Doc. 79 at 1.) Defendants filed a response and motion to strike. (Doc. 81.) 19 According to defendants, Carrasco is not authorized to represent Rivera and the motion 20 should be stricken on that basis. Defendants also argue the underlying claims in this suit 21 involve medical care for Rivera’s retinal detachment and Carrasco’s motion impermissibly 22 seeks injunctive relief unrelated to the claims at issue. (Doc. 5 at 11.) 23 “While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, [h]e has no authority 24 to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 25 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (simplified). Carrasco therefore cannot appear and seek relief on 26 Rivera’s behalf. But even if Carrasco could, “there must be a relationship between the 27 injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 28 complaint.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). The motion seeks relief unrelated to the retinal detachment alleged in the complaint. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 79) is 5|| DENIED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 81) is DENIED AS MOOT. 8 Dated this 5th day of June, 2025. 9

LA Ata. Ye OC ft Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rivera 311818 v. Shinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-311818-v-shinn-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack