A place with no temperature? We all know that a place with no fluid is called vacuum, how can we describe a place with no temperature?, is right to say "no temperature" ? And if not why can't we say IT?
 A: At the extremes, science defines temperature to be 
$$\frac{1}{T}=\frac{\partial S}{\partial E}$$
Where $T$ is the temperature, $S$ is the entropy of the system and $E$ is the energy of the system.  So in any case where the partial derivative of entropy with respect to energy is undefined, temperature will be undefined as well.
So this leads us to look at a few scenarios:
 * The derivative is undefined because it approaches infinity
   * If you had a perfect energy "sink" that never increased in entropy, no matter how much energy you put into it, then it would have no temperature.
 * Entropy is undefined if there are no states.  The cardinality of the set of states for a pure vacuum would be 0.  This is where I think the pure-vacuum discussion would go
 * Energy is undefined.  I'm not sure if we ever consider these cases.  I think that if energy is undefined, we probably have to redefine temperature to come up with something meaningful.
So a pure vacuum with no states would have no temperature.  That being said, it is currently believed that that never happens.  At the quantum level, the volume in question will have some fluctuations.  Those fluctuations are often modeled as virtual particles which pop into existence and pop out just as quickly.  These particles mean the system you described tends to actually have a non zero number of possible states, so it has a temperature.
Also, as many have noted, isolating a system to talk about "no temperature" is mighty tricky.  Even in the dead of space, there's microwave radiation coursing through your system, generating an effective temperature of 2.7K.  We've gotten rather good at isolating systems, permitting us to get down to 0.00036 K, but the level of isolation called for to explore "no temperature" is believed to be unattainable.  Something from the environment will enter your system, or you will fail to fully remove everything from your system, so the resulting system will still end up having a temperature.
A: There is no place with $0 K$ (absolute zero), where $K$ is the temperature scale Kelvins. This is achievable in vacuum with no particles at all, inclusive of electromagnetism. 
Space would have a temperature of over $3 K$, but that is due to the photons of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background). This is assuming if we are not around the sun whose particles would further change this value. 
In other words, there are particles around us all the time and as long as they exist, it is not achievable to reach $0K$. From the second law of thermodynamics, we are tending to a heat death. 
A: There is a temperature in vacuum.  It’s black body radiation courtesy of the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang.  It’s roughly 2.7K.  
A: Unlike what other answers say, having "no temperature" is quite common, and happens in systems that are not in equilibrium and/or fail the ergodic principle so that equilibrium statistical mechanics just doesn't apply. 
For example think about chaotic systems, out-of equilibrium plasmas, glass transitions, driven systems,  etc.
If you take one of these systems and look at its microstate population they look very different than what you would get from a thermal distribution assuming a fixed temperature. The most common way to deal with this is by using multiple temperatures for the different constituents, but even that approach fails in some cases. 
