Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 30, 2025

Aquino v. Leslie Salvador

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:24-cv-04470
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Aquino v. Salvador, Judge Freeman dismissed the case without prejudice after Paul Anthony Aquino failed to pay the filing fee or respond to court orders.

Who this affects

Paul Anthony Aquino’s action against Leslie Salvador was dismissed without prejudice; the court did not decide the underlying disability or eviction allegations.

What happened

Paul Anthony Aquino filed this self-represented case against Leslie Salvador, alleging disability-rights violations and an unlawful eviction. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

A magistrate judge denied Aquino’s incomplete application to proceed without paying the filing fee and gave him a deadline to submit a new application or pay the fee. Aquino did neither and also failed to respond to an order asking why the case should not be dismissed.

Judge Freeman adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The clerk was ordered to close the file.

The detailed version

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

Case
Aquino v. Leslie Salvador · No. 5:24-cv-04470
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Jan. 30, 2025

Background

Paul Anthony Aquino filed this self-represented action against Leslie Salvador in the Central District of California. Aquino alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and an unlawful eviction from an apartment in Salinas, California. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California because the apartment and the property owner or landlord appeared to be located there.

After the transfer, Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen denied Aquino’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it was incomplete. The court gave Aquino a deadline to submit a renewed application or pay the filing fee. Aquino did not respond. Judge van Keulen then ordered Aquino to explain why the action should not be dismissed. Aquino again did not respond.

Recommendation and ruling

Judge van Keulen recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward or comply with court orders. The recommendation stated that objections could be filed within 14 days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Aquino did not file objections within that period.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman found the recommendation correct and well reasoned. Although the recommendation did not specify whether dismissal would be with or without prejudice, and the earlier order had warned that nonresponse could lead to dismissal with prejudice, Judge Freeman concluded that dismissal without prejudice was more appropriate because the stated basis was Aquino’s failure to submit a renewed fee-waiver application or pay the filing fee.

The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The clerk was ordered to close the file.

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.