Briggs v. Corvizicy
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-04422
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Briggs v. Corvizicy, Judge Chen dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Briggs neither paid the fee nor applied to proceed without paying.
Ronnie Lynn Briggs, the unrepresented prisoner plaintiff, whose case was dismissed without prejudice; Alexander Corvizicy, the defendant, is affected by the closure of the case.
What happened
In Briggs v. Corvizicy, Ronnie Lynn Briggs filed a prisoner complaint without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. The court told him to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it.
The court’s mail about the fee was returned as undeliverable. More than 28 days passed, and Briggs did not pay, submit the application, or otherwise contact the court.
Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the case without prejudice for failing to meet the filing-fee and address requirements. The court said any motion to reopen must include a change-of-address form and either the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it.
The detailed version
- Briggs v. Corvizicy · No. 3:25-cv-04422
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
Ronnie Lynn Briggs filed a prisoner complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 23, 2025. On the same day, the court notified Briggs that the action could not proceed until he either paid the filing fee or filed a completed prisoner application to proceed without paying the fee.
On July 18, 2025, court correspondence about the filing fee was returned as undeliverable. More than 28 days then passed without Briggs paying the filing fee, filing the application, or otherwise communicating with the court. The court also found that he had not complied with Civil Local Rule 3-11.
Ruling
The court dismissed the matter without prejudice because Briggs failed to pay the filing fee, file the application, or comply with the local address rule. The Clerk was directed to close the file. The court stated that any motion to reopen must be accompanied by a change-of-address form and either the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it.
Effect of the Order
The opinion does not decide the substance of Briggs’s § 1983 claims. It ends the case based on filing-fee, application, and address-compliance requirements, while expressly stating that the dismissal is without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.