Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04915/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04915-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 The Court has received several similar filings by a “Charles Muhammad” at the same

address as Plaintiff Charles Caston.

Case No. C 06-4915 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ETC.

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHARLES CASTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

U.S. FEDERAL COMMUNICATION

COMMISSION,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 06-4915 JF (HRL)

ORDER (1) DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; (2) DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND; AND (3) DENYING

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

[re: doc. nos. 2 & 3]

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff Charles Caston (“Plaintiff”)1, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing

a one-page document entitled “ORIGINAL PETITION” on August 14, 2006. This document,

which the Court construes as a civil complaint, alleges that Defendants – the United States

Federal Communication Commission and “S.A.I.A.” – violated Plaintiff’s rights under the

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, requests a jury

trial and damages, and requests leave to proceed on behalf of a class. The complaint does not,

Case 5:06-cv-04915-JF Document 5 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

 Plaintiff filed a similar complaint against other federal agencies on August 15, 2006. 

That complaint is addressed in a separate order.

2

Case No. C 06-4915 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ETC.

(JFLC2)

however, allege any facts in support of these allegations.2

In conjunction with filing the complaint in this action, Plaintiff filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the

commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that the would-be

plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The

court may deny in forma pauperis status, however, if it appears from the face of the proposed

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616

(9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Moreover, if the Court makes a determination that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court “shall dismiss the case.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

As presently drafted, the complaint appears to be without merit in that it fails to set forth

a cognizable claim. While the petition states in conclusory fashion that Defendants violated

Plaintiffs rights under various provisions of the United States Constitution, the complaint fails to

explain how Plaintiff was injured or who injured him. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied and the

complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he

must do so on or before October 20, 2006. Plaintiff may, at that time, make a renewed

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

In conjunction with his complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff

also filed a form “Request for Order (Domestic Violence Prevention).” This application states

that Plaintiff is seeking protection from the Federal Communication Commission et al. on behalf

of himself and his cousin, Ed Kelley, age fifty-eight. Plaintiff states that he wants “prison time

for the Director of the Federal Communication Commission.” He also states that he wishes to

seize “the S.A.I.A. company to help the homeless” because broadband technology is being used

Case 5:06-cv-04915-JF Document 5 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 06-4915 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ETC.

(JFLC2)

to control the toilets in San Jose. Plaintiff does not indicate that he gave any notice of his

application to Defendants.

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order “(TRO”) is the same as that for

issuing a preliminary injunction. Brown Jordan International, Inc. v. Mind’s Eye Interiors, Inc.,

236 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1154 (D. Hawaii 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes

Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a

preliminary injunction must show either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the

possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and

the balance of hardships tipping in the movant’s favor. Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1401-

02 (9th Cir. 1998); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int’l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir.

1984). These formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree

of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases. Roe, 134 F.3d at 1402. A

showing of likely success on the merits gives rise to a presumption of irreparable harm in

copyright and trademark cases. Triad Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330,

1335 (9th Cir. 1995); International Jenson, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819, 827 (9th

Cir. 1993).

A TRO may be granted without notice to the adverse party only if “(1) it clearly appears

from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable

injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney

can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the

efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that

notice should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Moreover, in this district an applicant for

TRO must give notice to the adverse party “[u]nless relieved by order of a Judge for good cause

shown.” Civ. L.R. 65-1(b).

Given the lack of factual specificity in Plaintiff’s complaint and his lack of explanation

for failing to give notice to Defendants, the Court will deny the application for TRO.

Case 5:06-cv-04915-JF Document 5 Filed 09/21/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 06-4915 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ETC.

(JFLC2)

ORDER

(1) Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as set

forth above;

(2) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; any amended

complaint shall be filed on or before October 20, 2006; and

(2) Plaintiff’s application for temporary restraining order is DENIED.

DATED: 9/21/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04915-JF Document 5 Filed 09/21/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case No. C 06-4915 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ETC.

(JFLC2)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Plaintiff pro se:

Charles Caston

P.O. Box 60501

Sunnyvale, CA 94288 

Case 5:06-cv-04915-JF Document 5 Filed 09/21/06 Page 5 of 5