McElroy v. U.S. District Court Executive Officials
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-04374
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In McElroy v. U.S. District Court Executive Officials, Judge Gilliam denied an extension and dismissed the case without prejudice because McElroy did not timely file a fee-waiver application.
Lathwahn McElroy’s case was dismissed without prejudice; the named defendants received judgment in their favor, and the court closed the case.
What happened
Lathwahn McElroy sued U.S. District Court Executive Officials and others, alleging interference with his court cases and seeking medical, housing, and other relief. McElroy was representing himself.
The court had required McElroy to pay the filing fee or submit an application to waive it. He requested 30 more days, citing transfers between facilities and limited access to legal resources, but he did not submit the application.
Judge Haywood Gilliam denied the extension, denied McElroy’s other requests as moot, and dismissed the case without prejudice for failing to timely file the application. The court also said the case appeared likely to be frivolous and duplicative.
The detailed version
- McElroy v. U.S. District Court Executive Officials · No. 4:25-cv-04374
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 10, 2025
Background
Lathwahn McElroy filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. He named “U.S. District Court Executive Officials, Does 1 to 3, Clerk of Court, Court Mailbox Authority Does 1 to 3 et al.” as defendants. The complaint alleged “constitutional interference” with his pending cases and requested an urgent healthcare compliance order for an inhaler, housing at an offsite medical center, and free access to petition.
The court notified McElroy that the case was deficient because he had neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed without paying it. The court gave him until June 21, 2025, to correct the deficiency and sent him the application form.
Motion and ruling
McElroy later requested a 30-day extension. He said he had been moved among four facilities, that different facilities used different fee-waiver procedures, and that he could not access the law library or jailhouse lawyers because the facility was on lockdown. He also requested additional time and access to legal materials, property, supplies, medical belongings, and other resources.
The court denied McElroy’s request for an extension to file the application and denied the remaining requests for relief as moot. The court stated that McElroy was aware of the filing-fee requirement, had filed at least 60 cases in California federal district courts and more than 10 appeals in the Ninth Circuit, and had not filed the application itself.
The court also stated that the action was likely frivolous and duplicative. It said McElroy had sued court administration over dismissals of prior actions, that court officials are generally immune from civil suits seeking liability for functions necessary to the judicial process, and that the complaint repeated inadequate-medical-care and retaliation claims raised in prior actions.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to timely file the application. It entered judgment for the defendants, directed the Clerk to close the case, and stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to filing a motion to reopen based on the failure to timely file the application.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.