Reybol v. State of California

Background

Arcelio Joseph Reybol filed a complaint against the State of California and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that the information in the application was insufficient to determine whether Reybol qualified. The application stated that he was not employed but included “Bloomber + Threadneedle” next to that answer. It also indicated income from business or self-employment, stocks, bonds, or royalties, and government sources without stating the amounts. Reybol further stated that he owned or was buying a home but did not provide its estimated value or mortgage payment.

The court denied the application and directed Reybol to file a revised application by April 18, 2025. The opinion states that he did not respond.

Order

The court issued an order to show cause, which requires a party to explain why a particular action should not be taken. Reybol must file a declaration by May 8, 2025, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to pursue the lawsuit, and failure to comply with court deadlines.

The order warns that failing to file a written response will be treated as an admission that Reybol does not intend to continue prosecuting the case and that the case will likely be dismissed. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.