Castrence v. Doe et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING 17 Motion for Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/30/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REDENTOR C. CASTRENCE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-02075-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
(ECF No. 17)

JOHN DOE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Taek Samuel Yoon, on behalf of Plaintiff Redentor C. Castrence, initiated this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 26, 2012.1 (ECF No. 1.) Mr.

19

Yoon purported to consent to magistrate jurisdiction on Plaintiff’s behalf. (ECF No. 7.) No

20

other parties have appeared in the action.

21

Plaintiff, through Mr. Yoon, initially submitted an application to proceed in forma

22

pauperis by a prisoner. (ECF No. 2.) Noting that Plaintiff did not appear to be in custody,

23

the Court directed Plaintiff to file a regular civil in forma pauperis application or pay the

24

filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) Thereafter, Plaintiff’s mail repeatedly was

25

returned as undeliverable. Various requests to have his mail sent to non-attorney

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s custody status at the time of filing is unclear. His complaint detailed acts that occurred at North
Kern State Prison (ECF No. 1), but his application to proceed in forma pauperis stated that he was a civil
detainee incarcerated at an immigration detention facility (ECF No. 2). Mr. Yoon has consistently provided
the Court with a non-custodial, and apparently residential, mailing address.

1

individuals other than himself, including to Mr. Yoon, were denied. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.)

2

Plaintiff’s mailing address eventually was changed to an address in Seoul, South Korea,

3

with mail to be sent to the care of Mr. Yoon. (See ECF No. 13.) No further application to

4

proceed in forma pauperis was submitted.

5

On July 8, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days,

6

why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order, and

7

failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the Court’s filing fee.

8

(ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff did not respond, and the action was dismissed on August 8, 2013.

9

(ECF No. 15.)

10

On July 23, 2014, Mr. Yoon filed a motion for relief. (ECF No. 17.) He asserts that

11

the Court’s order to show cause arrived in South Korea on July 25, 2013, after the

12

fourteen day deadline for Plaintiff to respond. He asks that the court reopen the case

13

and file his first amended complaint, which he lodged with the Court. (ECF No. 18.)

14

Alternatively, he asks that his proposed first amended complaint be treated as a new

15

case.

16

This action was dismissed after Plaintiff failed to file an application to proceed in

17

forma pauperis or pay the applicable filing fee. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) To date, Plaintiff has

18

not filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, or

19

indicated his ability or willingness to pay. Mr. Yoon’s proposed first amended complaint

20

informally requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but does not provide the

21

information necessary for such an application. (ECF No. 18.)

22

Further, Mr. Yoon previously was advised that parties representing themselves

23

“must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an attorney admitted to the Bar of

24

this Court and may not delegate that duty to any other individual, including husband or

25

wife, or any other party on the same side appearing without an attorney.” Local Rule

26

183(a). (See ECF No. 9.) Mr. Yoon is not an attorney and he is precluded from filing

27

cases on the behalf of anyone but himself. Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874,

28
2

1

877 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.

2

1987). Mr. Yoon’s assertion that he “received the whole power for this case from the

3

plaintiff” (ECF No. 18 at 16) does not authorize him to bring this action. Put simply, Mr.

4

Yoon may not bring, proceed with, or participate in this action on Plaintiff’s behalf.

5

Accordingly, Mr. Yoon’s motion for relief (ECF No. 17) is HEREBY DENIED.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 30, 2014

/s/

9

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3