Aguilar v. Imperial County Board of Supervisors
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's pending motions for injunctive relief filed after the court had previously dismissed the action for failure to pay the filing fee or properly support an IFP application. The court denied the motions without prejudice, reiterating that the case remains dismissed until the Plaintiff pays the fee or files a compliant IFP application by July 2, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's pending motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 11, 13) without prejudice.“Accordingly, Plaintiff's pending motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 11, 13) are DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court's decision is procedurally sound. The action was previously dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or properly support an IFP application. Because the case is dismissed, there is no operative complaint or pending case in which to grant injunctive relief. The court correctly denies the motions without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to re-file if he cures the deficiency (pays the fee or files a proper IFP application) by the deadline. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a short procedural ruling that correctly applies the principle that a court cannot grant injunctive relief in a case that has been dismissed for failure to pay fees or support an IFP application. It relies on a district court case (Cupp) to support the proposition that no operative complaint exists. While the reliance on a non-binding district court case is less robust than citing binding circuit authority on the mootness of motions in a dismissed case, the result is legally correct and standard practice. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural dismissal of pending motions.
Opinion
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 □□□