Opinion

Aguilar v. Imperial County Board of Supervisors

Court
District Court, S.D. California
Filed
May 21, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.6%

“[P]risoners must demonstrate that they are not able to 23 pay the filing fee with an affidavit and submission of their prison trust account records … 24 .”

How later courts described this case

  • “[P]risoners must demonstrate that they are not able to 23 pay the filing fee with an affidavit and submission of their prison trust account records … 24 .”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 LOUIE AGUILAR, JR., Case No.: 3:25-cv-00538-RBM-DDL

#25000185,

12

ORDER:

Plaintiff,

13

vs. (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S IFP

14

APPLICATION [Doc. 2]

15

IMPERIAL COUNTY BOARD OF (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

16

SUPERVISORS; JOHN DOE #1, Deputy WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

17 Sheriff; JOHN DOE #2, Deputy Sheriff; FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEES

JOHN DOE #3, Deputy Sheriff,

18

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

19 Defendants. MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AS MOOT [Docs. 6, 8]

20

21

22 On March 6, 2025, Louie Aguilar, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a detainee proceeding pro se,

23 filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

24 (“Complaint”). (Doc. 1 at 1, 3.) Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in District

25 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”). (Doc. 2.)

26 Before the Court could review Plaintiff’s IFP Application or screen Plaintiff’s

27 Complaint, Plaintiff filed several letters (Docs. 3–5), a Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc.

28

1 6), an Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), and a second Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 8).

2 For the reasons discussed below, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Application; (2)

3 DISMISSES this action without prejudice; and (3) DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for

4 injunctive relief (Docs. 6, 8) without prejudice.

5 II. IFP APPLICATION

6 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a District Court of the

7 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

8 $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must

9 pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference

10 Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The

11 additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed in

12 forma pauperis (“IFP”). Id.

13 The action may proceed despite a failure to pay the entire fee at the time of filing if

14 the court grants the Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Andrews v.

15 Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). “[W]here [an] IFP application is denied

16 altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee [is] paid.” Hymas v.

17 U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023)

18 To proceed IFP, prisoners must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a statement of

19 all assets [they] possess[,]” as well as “a certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account

20 statement (or institutional equivalent) for … the 6-month period immediately preceding the

21 filing of the complaint … .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2); see also Andrews v. King, 398

22 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[P]risoners must demonstrate that they are not able to

23 pay the filing fee with an affidavit and submission of their prison trust account records …

24 .”). “The [C]ourt shall [then] assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial payment of

25 any court fees required by law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of–

26 (A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account; or (B) the average monthly

27 balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing

28

1 of the complaint … .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). In short, while prisoners may qualify to

2 proceed IFP without having to pay the full statutory filing upfront, they remain obligated

3 to pay the full amount due in monthly payments. See Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84

4 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)–(2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.

5 2002).

6 Here, Plaintiff has not included a certified copy of his trust account statement for the

7 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. Without a certified

8 trust account statement, the Court is unable to assess whether an initial partial filing fee is

9 required to initiate the prosecution of Plaintiff’s case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s IFP

10 Application is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

11 III. MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

12 Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief are also DENIED as moot

13 without prejudice. (Docs. 6, 8.) In these motions, Plaintiff appears to seek an order from

14 this Court directing “the entire jail to not intervene w[ith] Plaintiff litigating [his case]” and

15 to “comply with legal mail procedures.” (Doc. 6 at 4; Doc. 8 at 3.) However, Plaintiff

16 now has “no operative complaint on which to base [his] preliminary injunction motions.”

17 Cupp v. Harris, No. 2:16-cv-00523-TLN-KJN, 2018 WL 4904819, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct.

18 9, 2018). Therefore, Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motions are moot. See, e.g., Malek

19 v. Valentia Apartments, LLC, Case No.: 24cv2076-LL-BLM, 2025 WL 790961, at *1 (S.D.

20 Cal. Mar. 12, 2025) (denying motions, including a motion for preliminary injunction, as

21 moot where such motions we all based on “the now-inoperative complaint”) (citations

22 omitted).

23 IV. CONCLUSION

24 Based on the foregoing, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Application (Doc. 2);

25 (2) DISMISSES this action without prejudice; and (3) DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for

26 preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 6, 8) without prejudice as moot.

27 To proceed with this action, Plaintiff must (a) prepay the entire $405 civil filing and

28

1 || administrative fee in one lump sum or (b) file a renewed IFP Application, which includes

2 ||a prison certificate, signed by a trust accounting official attesting as to his trust account

3 ||balances and deposits, and/or a certified copy of his Inmate Statement Report for the 6-

4 ||month period preceding the filing of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and

5 ||S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 3.2(b) on or before July 2, 2025.

6 If Plaintiff chooses not to comply with this Order by either paying the $405 civil

7 || filing and administrative fees or by submitting a properly supported IFP Application, this

8 will remain dismissed without prejudice without further order of the Court based on

9 || Plaintiff's failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 ||Dated: May 21, 2025 FR Be ? L >

12 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANE .. ANEX0 DDAAT TMNT

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.