Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 9, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00527
StatusUnknown

This text of Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party (Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Emmanuel L. Castillo, No. CV 21-00527-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Morey Unit Warden John/Jane Doe, et 13 al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Emmanuel L. Castillo, who is confined in the Arizona 17 State Prison Complex-Eyman (ASPC-Eyman) in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil 18 rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an April 5, 2021 Order, the Court gave 19 Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the administrative and filing fees or file a complete 20 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 21 On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for: Protection and or TRO, Temporary 22 Restraining Order” (Doc. 5) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6). 23 The Court will deny the Motion and the deficient Application to Proceed and will give 24 Plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application 25 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 26 I. Payment of Filing Fee 27 When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and a 28 $52.00 administrative fee in a lump sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma 1 pauperis, pay the $350.00 filing fee incrementally as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 2 An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires an affidavit of indigence and a 3 certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the six months preceding the filing 4 of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must submit statements from each 5 institution where the inmate was confined during the six-month period. Id. To assist 6 prisoners in meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form application. 7 LRCiv 3.4. 8 If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an 9 initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average 10 monthly balance in Plaintiff’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An 11 initial partial filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 12 The balance of the $350.00 filing fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the 13 preceding month’s income credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the 14 account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 15 II. Application Fails to Comply With Statute 16 Plaintiff has used the court-approved form, but the “Certificate of Correctional 17 Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust Account” section is not completed, and Plaintiff 18 has not submitted a certified six-month trust account statement. In light of these 19 deficiencies, the Court will deny the Application to Proceed and will give Plaintiff 30 days 20 to either pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to 21 Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 22 The Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) has notified the Court that a 23 certified trust fund account statement showing deposits and average monthly balances is 24 available from the ADC’s Central Office. Accordingly, Plaintiff must obtain the certified 25 copy of his ADC trust fund account statement for the six months immediately preceding the 26 filing of the Complaint from the ADC’s Central Office. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 III. Motion for Protection 2 In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks an “order of protection” and for the Court to 3 “temporar[i]ly house [him] in another facility – that is not the Arizona Department of 4 Corrections [–] until we can figure something else permanent.” He alleges that “ever since 5 [he has] been filing for the grievance process, [he has] been harassed verbally and sexually 6 [and has] been ass[a]ulted and threatened.” Plaintiff claims that when he was housed at a 7 different facility, he was “taken to a back room and repeatedly punched and kneed” and his 8 life was threatened several times. He asserts that since he arrived at ASPC-Eyman, he has 9 “been sexually harassed by male and female staff” and, when he said he was going to file 10 a Prison Rape Elimination Action (PREA) report against them, he “was given a ticket.” 11 Plaintiff asserts he is currently being held “in a Watch Pod” because he refused to house 12 with an inmate who had been housed in the same living area as Plaintiff in the prison where 13 Plaintiff had been assaulted. He claims prison officials have told him that “when April is 14 up, [he] will go to a regular pod.” Plaintiff alleges his “life has been put in danger to[o] 15 many times” and “[t]he last guy they put in [his] cell was to[o] much of a co[i]ncidence.” 16 He alleges that the assaults, sexual harassment, and death threats “still remain[], just by 17 another group of ADC employees and for the same reason”; he fears for his life; and “the 18 employees have shown the[ir] power by silencing [him].” 19 Whether to grant or deny a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary 20 injunction is within the Court’s discretion. See Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 21 1130, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1979). An injunction or restraining order is appropriate to grant 22 “intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally,” but relief 23 is not proper when it is requested on matters lying wholly outside the issues in the suit. 24 DeBeers Consol. Mines v. United States., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). To obtain injunctive 25 relief, the party “must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the 26 party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 27 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). In other words, Plaintiff must seek injunctive relief 28 related to the merits of his underlying claims. Plaintiff’s allegations in his Motion are 1 unrelated to the claims in his Complaint; the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint relate to an 2 alleged failure to conduct regular inspections of security devices at a different facility that 3 resulted in inmates manipulating the lock to Plaintiff’s cell on April 26, 2019, and 4 assaulting Plaintiff.1 Thus, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion. 5 IV. Warnings 6 A. Address Changes 7 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 8 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 9 relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 10 action. 11 B. Possible Dismissal 12 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these 13 warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 14 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure 15 to comply with any order of the Court). 16 IT IS ORDERED: 17 (1) Plaintiff’s “Motion for: Protection and or TRO, Temporary Restraining 18 Order” (Doc. 5) is denied without prejudice.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Castillo 191870 v. Unknown Party, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-191870-v-unknown-party-azd-2021.