Briggs v. Robbert
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-04427
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Briggs v. Robbert, Judge Chen dismissed Ronnie Briggs’s prisoner civil-rights case without prejudice because he did not pay the fee, seek a waiver, or update his address.
Ronnie Briggs’s prisoner civil-rights case was dismissed without prejudice and the file was closed. The order also sets requirements for any motion Briggs files to reopen the matter.
What happened
Ronnie Briggs filed a prisoner civil-rights 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 was returned as undeliverable. More than 28 days passed, and Briggs did not pay the fee, submit the application, or otherwise contact the court.
Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to meet those filing requirements and the court’s address rule. The clerk was ordered to close the file, and any motion to reopen must include a change-of-address form and the fee or an application to proceed without paying.
The detailed version
- Briggs v. Robbert · No. 3:25-cv-04427
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
Ronnie Lynn Briggs filed a prisoner complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court notified him that the case could not proceed until he paid the filing fee or filed a completed application to proceed without paying the fee.
The court later received its correspondence as undeliverable. More than 28 days passed without Briggs paying the filing fee, filing the application, or otherwise communicating with the court. The order states that he also failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11.
Ruling
The court dismissed the matter without prejudice because Briggs did not pay the filing fee, file the application, or comply with the address rule. The clerk was ordered to close the file. A 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.
The order did not address the underlying allegations in Briggs’s complaint.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.