Reybol v. State of California
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-01912
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Reybol v. State of California, Judge Hixson ordered Reybol to explain by April 16 why the case should not be dismissed.
Arcelio Joseph Reybol and the continuation of his case against the State of California; the order requires Reybol to respond before the court decides whether to dismiss the action.
What happened
Arcelio Joseph Reybol sued the State of California and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court could not determine his eligibility because he did not provide required details about his income, government payments, home value, and mortgage payment.
The court had denied his application and ordered him to submit a revised application by March 24, 2025. Reybol did not respond.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Reybol to file a written declaration by April 16, 2025, explaining why the case should not be dismissed. The order states that failing to respond will be treated as an admission that he does not intend to pursue the case and that the case will likely be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Reybol v. State of California · No. 3:25-cv-01912
- Thomas Hixson
- Mar. 26, 2025
Background
Arcelio Joseph Reybol filed a complaint against the State of California and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that the information in his application was insufficient to determine whether he qualified. Reybol reported receiving money from business or self-employment, stocks, bonds, or royalties, and welfare, Social Security, or another government source, but did not identify each source or state the amount received. He also reported owning or buying a home without providing its estimated market value or mortgage payment.
Prior Order and Nonresponse
The court denied Reybol’s application and directed him to file a revised application by March 24, 2025. The opinion states that he did not respond.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered Reybol to file a declaration by April 16, 2025, explaining why the action should not be dismissed. The order warns that failure to file a written response will be treated as an admission that Reybol does not intend to pursue the case and that the case will likely be dismissed. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.