Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01741/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01741-0/pdf.json

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\06-1741-dsm.wpd. -1- 06cv1741

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABEL AGUILAR, Jr., Civil No. 06-1741 BEN (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL

ACTION:

(1) FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING

FEE OR MOVE TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); 

AND

(2) FOR LACK OF PROPER VENUE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)

& 1406(a)

 vs.

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General;

KERN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

Defendants.

 

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Patton State Hospital in Patton, California, and

proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

alleges California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the Kern County District Attorney have

violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by holding him in custody and without indictment

“solely on the information of a ‘Preliminary Hearing’ pursuant to Article I § 14 of the California

Constitution.” (Compl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff further claims he is being vindictively and maliciously

prosecuted in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff seeks no damages–only

equitable and declaratory relief. (Id. ¶ 21(a), (b).) 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01741-BEN-CAB Document 2 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 4
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 takes judicial notice of its own docket and notes that Brian Steven McNeal is also

currently housed at Patton State Hospital. See McNeal v. People of the State of California, S.D. Cal.

Civil Case No. 06-1790-JAH (JMA). Mr. McNeal, however, has had his in forma pauperis privileges

revoked pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

See McNeal v. Villaflor, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 06-1508 BTM (RBB) (Aug. 29, 2006 “Order (1)

Revoking Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status; and (2) Dismissing Action for Seeking Monetary

Damages Against an Immune Defendant”) [Doc. No. 2]. Moreover, Mr. McNeal has had a prefiling

review order entered against him in this district. See In re Brian Steven McNeal, S.D. Cal.

Miscellaneous Case No. 06mc226-IEG ( May 8, 2006 “Order Declaring Respondent a Vexatious

Litigant and Enjoining him from Filing Further Civil Actions Challenging his Ongoing State Criminal

Proceedings without prior Permission of the Court”) [Doc. No. 7].

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\06-1741-dsm.wpd. -2- 06cv1741

The Court first notes Plaintiff’s Complaint is not signed by him; instead it has been

“[p]repared by third party intervener Brian Steven McNeal.” (Id. at 6.)1

 Because Plaintiff is

proceeding in pro se, he may not have another inmate act as his counsel or otherwise represent

him in this matter. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting

that pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than themselves); Cato v. United

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995); McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th

Cir. 1966). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to pro se litigants. See

FED.R.CIV.P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least

one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an

attorney, shall be signed by the party.”). 

I.

Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

Effective April 9, 2006, any party instituting a civil action, suit or proceeding in a district

court of the United States, other than a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has not paid the $350 filing

fee required to maintain this civil action, nor has he submitted a motion to proceed IFP pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, this action must be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee

or move to proceed IFP. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01741-BEN-CAB Document 2 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\06-1741-dsm.wpd. -3- 06cv1741

II.

Lack of Proper Venue

The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s case lacks proper venue. Venue may be raised by

a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading and the time for

doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). “A civil action

wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise

provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject

of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there

is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790

F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986).

“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or

district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any district in or

division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Here, Plaintiff alleges he is “being held in lieu of U.S. Constitutional rights in San

Bernardino County (Patton State Hospital),” and that “[v]enue in the Central District of

California is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.” (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff also alleges

“[t]he conduct/practices set forth [in his Complaint] were commenced in Kern County,” and

taken by the Kern County District Attorney. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 7.) However, neither of the named

Defendants is alleged to reside and no claim appears to have arisen in San Diego or Imperial

Counties. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Thus, venue may be proper in either the Central District of

California, Eastern Division, or in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 84(c)(1), or (b), but not in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d), § 1391;

Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01741-BEN-CAB Document 2 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\06-1741-dsm.wpd. -4- 06cv1741

III.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without

prejudice for failing to pay the $350 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), failing to move

to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and for lack of proper venue pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1406(a). The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2006

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01741-BEN-CAB Document 2 Filed 09/19/06 Page 4 of 4