Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02339/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02339-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

filed

nFEB 15 Mill134

1

2

3

4

mmt'f

ay: 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MAURO PADILLA,

CDCR #F-55326,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS, TO COMPEL

PRISON OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE

TRUST ACCOUNT STATEMENTS,

AND FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff,

13

vs. 14

SCOTT KERNAN, etal.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

[ECF Nos. 4, 6, 8,13] 18

19

20 MAURO PADILLA (“Plaintiff’), currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison

(“CEN”) in Imperial, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims the Secretary ofthe California Department

ofCorrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and eight CEN officials denied his right to

free exercise ofreligion in violation ofthe First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

(“RLUIPA”) when they refused to provide him Kosher meals between March 2015 and

May 2016. (ECF No. 1 at 3-7.) Plaintiffseeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as

nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. (Id. at 8-9.)

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 20 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
1 I. Procedural History

2 On October 25, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of

Counsel and dismissed the case because Plaintifffailed to either prepay the $400 civil

filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or file a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 3). Plaintiffwas granted 45 days leave to

re-open the case by doing either. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff has since filed two separate Motions to Proceed IFP (ECF Nos. 4, 13),

neither ofwhich complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2)’s requirement that he “submit a

certified copy of [his] trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) ... for the

6-month period immediately preceding the filing of [his] complaint.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2); see also Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). Instead, he

has filed a “Motion to Compel,” in which he “ask[s] the Court to [c]ompel the

respondents[’] agents to forward the ... trust account statement’” required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2) to either the Court or to him, as well a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

and a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 8), which seeks to enjoin

Defendants from tampering with his mail, engaging in excessive cell searches, cancelling

his Kosher diet without justification, and permitting him “two celebrations per year for

Messianic Judaism services.” (ECF No. 8 at 1-2.)

Motions to Proceed IFP

As Plaintiffis aware, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a

district court ofthe United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must

pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite failure

to prepay the entire fee only ifPlaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007);

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Prisoners granted leave to

proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,”

Bruce v. Samuels,__U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 627, 629 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d

1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of outcome. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2);

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 II.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 20 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

Section 1915(a)(2) requires all persons seeking to proceed without full prepayment

offees to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets possessed and

demonstrates an inability to pay. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th

Cir. 2015). In support ofthis affidavit, section 1915(a)(2) also clearly requires that

prisoners, like Plaintiff, “seeking to bring a civil action ... without prepayment offees

... shall submit a certified copy ofthe trust fund account statement (or institutional

equivalent)... for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing ofthe

complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,

1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court assesses an

initial payment of 20% of(a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six

months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months,

whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody ofthe prisoner then collects

subsequent payments, assessed at 20% ofthe preceding month’s income, in any month in

which his account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the Court until the entire

filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); Bruce, 136 S. Ct. at 629.

Because neither ofPlaintiffs Motions to Proceed IFP comply with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2), the Court is unable to assess the appropriate amount ofthe initial filing fee

which may be statutorily required to initiate the prosecution ofthis case. Therefore, both

his Motions to Proceed IFP (ECF Nos. 4, 13) must be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1).

Motion to Compel

Acknowledging that his IFP Motions are incomplete, Plaintiff also seeks a court

order compelling CEN trust account officials, none ofwhom are named as parties to this

action, “to forward the ... trust account statement’” required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) to

either the Court or to him. (ECF No. 6 at 1-2.) Plaintiffrequests that the Court order CEN

trust account officials to cease “hindering” his access to the court by “refusing to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 III.

24

25

26

27

28

3

3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 20 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
1 [provide] the certified copy of [his] trust account statement.” (ECF No. 17 at 1-2.)

In support ofhis Motion, Plaintiff has attached photocopies oftwo inquiries he

first made on September 27, 2016, to the CEN mailroom staffvia a CDCR 22

Inmate/Parolee Request for Interview, Item or Service Form (ECF No. 6 at 3), and

another on October 14, 2016, to an unidentified library clerk, both requesting information

regarding the status of his certified trust account statements. (Id. at 5.) In response to his

September 27, 2016 inquiry, a CEN official informed Plaintiffhis trust account statement

“was included” in legal mail that was delivered to him on September 12, 2016. (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiffs CDCR 22 Form dated October 14, 2016, which he filed in this Court on

October 27, 2016, indicates only that his renewed request for a 6-month trust account

certificate was “forwarded to another staff’ member. (Id. at 5.)

First, section 1915(a)(2) clearly provides that “prisoner[s] seeking to bring a civil

action ... without prepayment offees ... in addition to filing the affidavit [required by

§ 1915(a)(1)] shall submit a certified copy ofthe trust fund statement” required to

support their IFP applications, and that they may do so by “obtaining] [them] from the

appropriate official of [the] prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), (2). Indeed, California “[i]nmates shall be issued [trust] account statements

upon their written request from the Trust Office that reflects [their] current balance,

provided 90 days have elapsed since their previous request.” Cal. Dept. Corr. & Rehab.

Operations Manual § 54070.4 (2016) (emphasis added); see also Cal. Code Regs. tit.

15, § 3133(c) (2016) (governing procedure for processing “Confidential Mail with Inmate

Trust Account Withdrawals”).

Plaintiff does not allege to have properly complied with these regulations, and

“[although it may take some time for the prison to [respond to Plaintiffs written

request],” “each prison has a procedure” to ensure compliance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2). Smith v. Escrow & Cnty Treas., 2008 WL 111074 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9,

2008). Plaintiffmust follow those procedures; and while he objects that “many inmates

are having the same problems,” (ECF No. 10 at 2), IFP Motions, accompanied by

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

3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 20 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
1 certified copies ofinmate trust funds account statements, are filed by California state

prisoners in this Court on an almost daily basis. “[U]tter noncompliance by prison

officials in this [regard] is not a problem this Court has encountered before.” Id. at * 1.

Second, the Court has no authority to “compel” CEN trust account officials, none

ofwhom are named or have yet to be served as parties in this matter, to provide his trust

account statements to the Court on his behalf. See e.g., Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, too, is an essential element ofthe

jurisdiction of a district... court, without which the court is powerless to proceed to an

adjudication.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted); see also Smith, 2008 WL

111074 at * 1 (finding Court had “no authority” to “compel the trust account office to

complete [a prisoner’s IFP] application.”).

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (ECF No. 6). It

will, however, GRANT Plaintiff additional time in which to submit another written

request to CEN trust account officials pursuant to Cal. Dept. Corr. & Rehab. Op. Man.

§ 54070.4, and to follow any other procedures established at CEN for procuring his trust

fund account statements. Like all other prisoner litigants, Plaintiffmay attach them to a

renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which the Clerk ofCourt will provide.

Motion for TRO/Preliminarv Injunctive Relief

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 IV.

Finally, Plaintiffhas also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO (ECF

No. 8) enjoining Defendants from tampering with his legal mail, conducting excessive

cell searches, cancelling his Kosher diet without justification, and requiring them to

permit two celebrations per year for Messianic Judaism, and to provide him “food with

religious symbolism for Holy Days.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), “[t]he Court may issue a preliminary injunction

only on notice to the adverse party,” and it may issue a TRO without written or oral

notice only if “specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the

adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (b)(1)(A).

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 20 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
A federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only ifit has

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matterjurisdiction over the lawsuit. See

Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that

one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon

service ofsummons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which

the party served must appear to defend.”). The court may not attempt to determine the

rights of persons not before it. See, e.g, Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S.

229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to

Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the

action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons

who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Crv. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C).

First, Plaintiffs Motion was filed with the Clerk ofCourt, but he has provided no

proof ofits service or actual notice upon any party. (ECF No. 8 at 5.) Moreover, because

he has yet to be granted leave to proceed IFP, his Complaint has yet to be screened

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and no U.S. Marshal Service has yet to

be effected pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) upon any named

Defendant. Therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffinjunctive reliefbecause it has no

personal jurisdiction over the persons he seeks to enjoin. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1),

(d)(2); Murphy Bros., Inc., 526 U.S. at 350; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727-28; Ruhrgas AG,

526 U.S. at 584.

Second, “‘[a] plaintiffseeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is

likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

ofpreliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

in the public interest.” Glossip v. Gross,_U.S.__, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015)

(quoting Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).

“Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible,

in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliancefor the WildRockies v. Cottrell, 632

F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

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

6

3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 20 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
Plaintiff claims, in an unverified memorandum offered in support ofhis Motion

(ECF No. 19), only broadly and without further explanation, that his “legal mail has been

given to him opened various times,” and that CEN staffhas denied him the “opportunity

to practice his faith.” (Id. at 1-2.) These allegations, without more at this preliminary

stage ofthe case, are simply insufficient to establish either that he is likely to prevail on

the merits or that he faces any immediate or irreparable injury in the absence of

extraordinary injunctive relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “Speculative injury does not

constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.”

Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988)

(citations omitted). A plaintiffmust do more than merely allege imminent harm, he must

demonstrate it. Id; see also Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th

Cir. 2016).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO (ECF No. 8)

is also DENIED.

13

14

15 V. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (ECF No. 6);

2) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and TRO

(ECF No. 8);

3) DENIES Plaintiffs Motions to Proceed IFP (ECF Nos. 4, 13) and

DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to comply

with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); and

4) GRANTS Plaintiffforty-five (45) days from the date ofthis Order in which

to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing

fee, or (2) filing a new Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a certified copy ofhis trust

account statementfor the 6-month periodpreceding thefiling ofhis Complaint pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b).

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 III

7

3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 20 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
1 5) The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to provide Plaintiffwith another Courtapproved form “Motion and Declaration in Support ofMotion to Proceed IFP” in this

matter. IfPlaintiffneither pays the $400 filing fee in full nor sufficiently completes and

files the attached Motion to Proceed IFP, together with a certified copy ofhis trust

account statement within 45 days, however, this action will remained dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order ofthe Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Dated: Februa

11

. Benitez

Unifed States District Judge

Hon.,

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

3:16-cv-2339-BEN-PCL

Case 3:16-cv-02339-BAS-PCL Document 20 Filed 02/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8