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

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01882
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX JOE GONZALEZ, No. 1:25-cv-01882-JLT-FRS (BAM) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 12) 14 CDCR CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Alex Joe Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint has not yet been 19 screened. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a civil protection order, filed January 21 12, 2026. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff states that the case is complex and involves many defendants. 22 Plaintiff alleges that on January 4, 2026, via Cybernetic Communication, Defendants of CDCR 23 Joe Helmuth and other defendants listed in this motion searched the Global Tel Link of CDCR 24 looking for images to tarnish Plaintiff’s civil law suit. Plaintiff alleges that this is a First 25 Amendment violation because the First Amendment allows a citizen to petition the state, 26 government, or county without retaliation or reproach. Plaintiff also states that threats of murders 27 and defamation also exist. (Id.) 28 /// 1 Plaintiff’s motion is denied, as Plaintiff does not request any specific form of relief or 2 protection. 3 To the extent Plaintiff is seeking some form of injunctive relief or may request such relief 4 in the future, Plaintiff is informed that the pendency of this action does not give the Court 5 jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 6 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is 7 limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is 8 proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 9 As Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has 10 shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, no defendant has been ordered served, 11 and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal 12 jurisdiction over any named defendants in this action or other individuals named in Plaintiff’s 13 motion. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for civil protection order, (ECF No. 12), is HEREBY 15 DENIED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

18 Dated: January 14, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28