Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02104/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02104-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:17-cv-2104-CAB-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEANDRO LEONEL GONZALEZ 

CASTILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. RENTERIA; L. ROMERO; R. 

SEGOVIA,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2104-CAB-WVG

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION; AND

(2) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Leandro Leonel Gonzalez Castillo (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently housed in 

Mule Creek State Prison, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 

complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff has not 

prepaid the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. No. 4), 

along with a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary 

Injunction (Doc. No. 2.)

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-02104-CAB-WVG Document 5 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:17-cv-2104-CAB-WVG

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

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if 

it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction 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 of summons 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 of Civil 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. CIV. P. 

65(d)(2)(A)-(C).

The matter before this Court involves allegations of constitutional violations by 

Plaintiff against three correctional officers when he was housed at the Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) from February 2016 to June 2016. (See Compl., 

Doc. No. 1, at 1.) In the Motion before the Court, Plaintiff claims he is suffering from 

“physical sexual abuses and retaliation for speech by defendants, A. Renteria, L. Romero, 

and R. Segovia and each of their successors in any CDCR facility, agents, employees, 

inmates, and all person acting in concert and participating with them.” (Pl.’s Mot., Doc 

No. 2, at 1.) Plaintiff also claims he is being denied single cell status at his current place 

of incarceration. (Id. at 1-2.)

However, at the time Plaintiff filed this Motion, he was housed at Mule Creek 

State Prison (“MCSP”) and not RJD. (See Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff continues to be housed 

at MCSP.

1

 Plaintiff also references administrative grievances in his Motion and attaches 

several to his Motion. Those grievances appear to have been filed while Plaintiff was 

 

1

 See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx (website last visited Oct. 30, 2017.) 

Case 3:17-cv-02104-CAB-WVG Document 5 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:17-cv-2104-CAB-WVG

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

housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP). There are no plausible allegations that 

the named RJD Defendants would have any control over Plaintiff’s current housing 

situation.

Moreover, there are no Defendants in this action who are alleged to be employees 

of MCSP or SVSP. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief that would require the Court to 

presume jurisdiction over parties who are not part of this action. The Court cannot grant 

Plaintiff injunctive relief because it has no personal jurisdiction over unnamed officials at 

MCSP or SVSP. 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. A district court has no authority to grant relief in the form of 

a temporary restraining order or permanent injunction where it has no jurisdiction over 

the parties. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999) (“Personal 

jurisdiction, too, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district ... court, without 

which the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.”) (citation and internal 

quotation omitted).

If Plaintiff believes that his constitutional rights have been violated since he was 

housed at prisons other than RJD, he should proceed with a separate civil action filed in 

the court with the proper venue.

II. Motion to Proceed IFP

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the 

plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of filing, he may be granted leave to proceed IFP, but he 

nevertheless remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments,” see Williams v. 

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his action is 

ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 

844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). A “prisoner” is defined as “any person” who at the time of 

Case 3:17-cv-02104-CAB-WVG Document 5 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:17-cv-2104-CAB-WVG

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

filing is “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, 

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or 

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(h); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 847.

In order to comply with the PLRA, prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP must 

also submit a “certified copy of the[ir] trust fund account statement (or institutional 

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

. . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 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), (4); see Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850. Thereafter, the institution having custody 

of the prisoner collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month’s 

income, in any month in which the prisoner’s account exceeds $10, and forwards them to 

the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

While Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), 

he has not attached a certified copy of his trust account statements, or an institutional 

equivalent, for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Section 1915(a)(2) clearly requires that 

prisoners “seeking to bring a civil action . . . without prepayment of fees . . . shall submit 

a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 

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

§ 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added). 

Without Plaintiff’s current trust account statement reflecting the 6-month period 

immediately preceding the filing of this action, the Court is simply unable to assess the 

appropriate amount of the initial filing fee which is statutorily required to initiate the 

prosecution of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

/ / / 

Case 3:17-cv-02104-CAB-WVG Document 5 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:17-cv-2104-CAB-WVG

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

III. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 2) is 

DENIED without prejudice.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED and the action is 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a).

(3) Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days from the date of this 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 of his trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of 

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

(4) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a Courtapproved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP” in this 

matter. If Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full nor sufficiently completes and 

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

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

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

Dated: November 1, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02104-CAB-WVG Document 5 Filed 11/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5