# Aguilar v. Imperial County Board of Supervisors

> District Court, S.D. California · May 21, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11056260

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** May 21, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11056260

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11056260. Public record. Not legal advice.