# Aguilar v. Imperial County Board of Supervisors

> District Court, S.D. California · June 11, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11069923

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** June 11, 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/11069923

## 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-0538-RBM-DDL
Booking #25000185,
12
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
Plaintiff,
13 PENDING MOTIONS FOR
vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
14

15 [Docs. 11, 13]
IMPERIAL COUNTY BOARD OF
16
SUPERVISORS, JOHN DOE #1, Deputy
17 Sheriff, JOHN DOE #2, Deputy Sheriff,
JOHN DOE #, Deputy Sheriff,
18

19 Defendants.
20
21 On March 6, 2025, Louie Aguilar (“Plaintiff”), a detainee proceeding pro se, filed a
22 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), along with an Application to Proceed in
23 District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) (Doc. 2). Plaintiff
24 subsequently filed several letters (Docs. 3–5), a Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 6),
25 a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), and another Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 8).
26 On May 21, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP Application and dismissed this
27 action without prejudice. (Doc. 9.) The Court notified Plaintiff that, to have his case
28
1 reopened, he must either pay the full $405 civil filing fee or file a renewed IFP application
2 || that includes a prison certificate signed by a trust accounting official by July 2, 2025. (d.
3 3-4.) The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief as moot because the
4 || case had been dismissed and therefore there was ““‘no operative complaint on which to base
5 || [his] preliminary injunction motions.’” (Ud. at 3 (quoting Cupp v. Harris, No. 2:16-cv-
6 ||00523-TLN-KJN, 2018 WL 4904819, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2018)).)
7 On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff re-filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10!) and
8 || filed a Motion Seeking Temporary Injunction/Court Oder (Doc. 11). On June 2, 2025,
9 || Plaintiff filed a “Brief Notification Regarding Case.” (Doc. 12.) On June 4, 2025, Plaintiff
10 || filed a different First Amended Complaint and Request for Temporary Injunction (Doc.
11 || 13) and attached his original First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13-17).
12 Despite these filings, Plaintiff has yet to comply with the Court’s May 21, 2025
13 || Order that he either pay the filing fee or submit a properly supported IFP motion. (Doc.
14 119.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's pending motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 11, 13) are
15 || DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is reminded that, if wishes to proceed with this
16 he must either (a) pay the entire $405 civil filing and administrative fee or (b) file a
17 renewed IFP Application with the required documentation on or before July 2, 2025.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 || DATE: June 11, 2025
20 Gt Laerrnsdln, Wf otarsysD
7] ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
©.
27 ||! Document No. 10 is duplicative of Document No. 7.
28 * Document No. 13-1 is duplicative of Document Nos. 7 and 10.
ANE .. NEXO0 DDLA □□□

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11069923. Public record. Not legal advice.