Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 17, 2024

Nevarez v. Napa State Hospital

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:23-cv-04430
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Fee PetitionCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Nevarez v. Napa State Hospital, Judge Gilliam denied Angel V. Nevarez’s fee-waiver request and required him to say whether he still seeks dismissal.

Who this affects

Angel V. Nevarez, whose request to waive the filing fees was denied and who must respond within 28 days about whether he still seeks voluntary dismissal.

What happened

In Nevarez v. Napa State Hospital, Angel V. Nevarez, who is representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying fees up front and gave him time to file an amended complaint.

Nevarez then filed a request saying he could not afford the filing fee and asking to dismiss the case. The court treated that filing as both a request to voluntarily dismiss the case and a request to waive the fees. It explained that voluntarily dismissing the case would not erase his obligation to pay the filing and docketing fees.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the request to waive the filing fees and ordered Nevarez to tell the court within 28 days whether he still wants to dismiss the case. If he does not respond, the court said it will grant his dismissal request and dismiss the case without prejudice, without further notice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nevarez v. Napa State Hospital · No. 4:23-cv-04430
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
June 17, 2024

Background

Angel V. Nevarez filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that permits certain civil-rights claims against state or local officials. On February 15, 2024, the court granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and dismissed his complaint with leave to file an amended complaint addressing identified deficiencies. The court set March 14, 2024, as the deadline for the amended complaint and warned that the action could be dismissed if he did not file it.

Nevarez instead filed a pleading titled “Request for Dismissal,” stating that he could not afford the filing fee and asking that the action be dismissed. The court construed that pleading as a request for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and as a request to waive the filing fees.

Court’s ruling

The court denied Nevarez’s request to waive the filing fees. It explained that voluntarily dismissing the action would not entitle him to a refund of filing or docketing fees and would not eliminate his obligation to pay the filing fee. The court stated that the obligation applies whether Nevarez continues with the action, voluntarily dismisses it, or the action is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court ordered Nevarez to inform it within 28 days whether he still seeks to dismiss the action. The order states that, if he does not respond within that period, the court will grant his request to voluntarily dismiss the action and dismiss the action without prejudice, without further notice. The court also reminded him that, if he decides to proceed, he must file an amended complaint stating legally cognizable claims. This order did not itself dismiss the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.