Aguilar v. Napa County

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedOctober 8, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-02161
StatusUnknown

This text of Aguilar v. Napa County (Aguilar v. Napa County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Aguilar v. Napa County, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDGAR AGUILAR, Case No. 25-cv-02161-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; 9 v. GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 10 NAPA COUNTY, et al., DENYING MOTION FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL Defendants. 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 9 12

13 Edgar Aguilar, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California, filed a 14 pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events that occurred while he was held 15 at Napa County Jail. Dkt. No. 7. 16 Mr. Aguilar states on the face of his pleading that it was filed as a placeholder to comply 17 with a time limitation, that the pleading is incomplete, and that he intends to “amend his pleading 18 setting forth the full factual claims for relief” when his “time permits.” Id. at 30. Although it has 19 been six months since he made that statement, Mr. Aguilar has yet to amend his pleading. See 20 generally Dkt. 21 The Court cannot meaningfully evaluate claims that are not supported by the “full fact[s].” 22 The Complaint therefore is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 23 For similar reasons, Mr. Aguilar’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel is 24 DENIED. Mr. Aguilar does not identify exceptional circumstances which would warrant the 25 appointment of pro bono counsel, and without the complete facts the Court cannot determine 26 whether Mr. Aguilar’s claims warrant counsel. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 27 Cir. 1997) (stating that a district court may appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances”); see 1 also Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (explaining that there is no 2 constitutional right to counsel in a civil case). The fact that a pro se litigant would be better served 3 with the assistance of counsel does not necessarily qualify plaintiff to be appointed pro bono 4 counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (that plaintiff may well 5 have fared better with assistance of counsel does not require appointment of counsel). 6 I. Conclusion 7 1. Pursuant to Mr. Agular’s statement that his pleading is incomplete and that he 8 wishes to amend, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 9 2. The AMENDED COMPLAINT shall be filed within thirty-five days from the date 10 this order is filed. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in 11 this order (25-cv-2161-PCP) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. In the 12 amended complaint, Mr. Aguilar must allege facts that demonstrate he is entitled to relief on every 13 claim against every defendant. An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See 14 London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[A] plaintiff waives all causes 15 of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.”); 16 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262–63 (9th Cir. 1992) (where an amended complaint did not 17 name all the defendants to an action, they were no longer defendants). 18 3. It is Mr. Aguilar’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court 19 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of 20 Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 21 do so will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 41(b). 23 4. Mr. Aguilar is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for 24 this case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case. 25 5. Mr. Aguilar’s motion to be appointed counsel is DENIED. See Dkt. No. 9. 26 6. Mr. Aguilar’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. See Dkt. No. 8. 27 The initial partial filing fee is $10.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (requiring a court to assess an ] whichever is greater). A copy of this order and the attached instructions will be sent to Mr. Aguilar 2 || via U.S. mail, and to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the 3 court’s financial office via email at trusthelpdesk@cdcr.ca.gov and 4 || CAND Finance@cand.uscourts.gov. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: October 8, 2025

9 P. Casey Pit 10 United States District Judge 1] as 12

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PAYMENT OF PRISONER’S FILING FEE 4 The prisoner shown as the plaintiff or petitioner on the attached order has filed a 5 civil action in forma pauperis in this court and owes to the court a filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the fee is to be paid as follows: 6

7 The initial partial filing fee listed on the attached order should be deducted by the prison trust account office from the prisoner’s trust account and forwarded to the clerk of 8 the court as the first installment payment on the filing fee. This amount is twenty percent 9 of the greater of (a) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint/petition or (b) the average 10 monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint/petition. 11

12 Thereafter, on a monthly basis, 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s trust account should be deducted and forwarded to the court each 13 time the amount in the account exceeds ten dollars ($10.00). The prison trust account 14 office should continue to do this until the filing fee has been paid in full.

15 If the prisoner does not have sufficient funds in his/her account to pay the initial partial filing fee, the prison trust account office should forward the available funds, and 16 carry the balance forward each month until the amount is fully paid. If the prisoner has 17 filed more than one complaint, (s)he is required to pay a filing fee for each case. The trust account office should make the monthly calculations and payments for each case in which 18 it receives an order granting in forma pauperis and these instructions. 19 The prisoner’s name and case number must be noted on each remittance. The initial 20 partial filing fee is due within thirty days of the date of the attached order. Checks should be made payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court and sent to Prisoner Accounts Receivable, 21 U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060, San Francisco, CA 94102. 22 cc: Plaintiff/Petitioner 23 Court’s Finance Office United States District Judge 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Aguilar v. Napa County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguilar-v-napa-county-cand-2025.