Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 29, 2025

Jones v. Superior Court of California, County of Mendocino

Judge
Wise
Docket
5:25-cv-01398
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jones v. Superior Court, Judge Wise dismissed Jones’s custody petition without prejudice because he neither paid the fee nor updated his address.

Who this affects

Michael Anthony Jones’s federal petition was dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it, and he did not provide a current address.

What happened

In Jones v. Superior Court of California, County of Mendocino, Michael Anthony Jones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 11, 2025.

The court told Jones to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it, but he did neither. Mail to him was returned as undeliverable, and he did not provide a current address or contact the court for more than three months.

Judge Wise dismissed the matter without prejudice, allowing Jones to file a motion to reopen. That motion must include either the filing fee or a complete application to proceed without paying it, along with his current address.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jones v. Superior Court of California, County of Mendocino · No. 5:25-cv-01398
Judge
Wise
Date
Apr. 29, 2025

Background

Michael Anthony Jones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 11, 2025. The court notified him that the case was deficient because he had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying the fee.

Procedural Issues

The court gave Jones 28 days to correct the filing-fee problem. The deadline passed without payment or an application. Separately, mail sent to Jones was returned as undeliverable. Jones did not provide the court with his current address or contact the court for more than three months.

Because Jones was proceeding without a lawyer, Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-11 required him to promptly file and serve a notice of any address change. The rule permits dismissal without prejudice when court mail is returned as undeliverable and the court does not receive a written communication with a current address within 60 days. The court also cited a Ninth Circuit decision affirming dismissal under this rule.

Ruling

Judge Noél Wise dismissed the matter without prejudice to Jones filing a motion to reopen the action. The court required any motion to reopen to include either the filing fee or a complete application to proceed without paying the fee, as well as notice of Jones’s current address. The clerk was directed to close the file. The order did not decide the substance of Jones’s petition.

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.