Alex Joe Gonzalez v. CDCR California State Prison, et al.

Opinion

ALEX JOE GONZALEZ, No. 1:25-cv-01882-JLT-FRS (BAM) (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER v. (ECF No. 12) CDCR CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Alex Joe Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint has not yet been screened. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a civil protection order, filed January 12, 2026. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff states that the case is complex and involves many defendants. Plaintiff alleges that on January 4, 2026, via Cybernetic Communication, Defendants of CDCR Joe Helmuth and other defendants listed in this motion searched the Global Tel Link of CDCR looking for images to tarnish Plaintiff’s civil law suit. Plaintiff alleges that this is a First Amendment violation because the First Amendment allows a citizen to petition the state, government, or county without retaliation or reproach. Plaintiff also states that threats of murders and defamation also exist. (Id.) /// Plaintiff’s motion is denied, as Plaintiff does not request any specific form of relief or protection. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking some form of injunctive relief or may request such relief in the future, Plaintiff is informed that the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. As Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction over any named defendants in this action or other individuals named in Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for civil protection order, (ECF No. 12), is HEREBY IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE