Briggs v. Killings
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-04423
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Briggs v. Killings, Judge Chen dismissed Ronnie Briggs’s prisoner complaint without prejudice because he did not pay the fee or submit a fee-waiver application.
Ronnie Briggs, the self-represented prisoner plaintiff; the case was dismissed without prejudice, subject to the stated requirements for any motion to reopen.
What happened
In Briggs v. Killings, Ronnie Briggs filed a prisoner complaint without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute. The court told him to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it.
The court’s correspondence about the fee was returned as undeliverable. After more than 28 days, Briggs had done neither and had not otherwise contacted the court. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to close the file.
Judge Edward Chen ordered that 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. Killings · No. 3:25-cv-04423
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 24, 2025
Background
Ronnie Briggs filed a prisoner complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court notified Briggs that the case could not proceed until he paid the filing fee or filed a completed prisoner application to proceed without paying the fee, commonly called an in forma pauperis application.
The court’s correspondence about the filing fee was returned as undeliverable. More than 28 days passed, and Briggs did not pay the fee, file the application, or otherwise communicate with the court. The court also stated that he failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11.
Ruling
The court dismissed the matter without prejudice. This means the dismissal did not bar a later effort to reopen or pursue the matter under the conditions stated by the court. 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 Clerk was directed to close the file. The court cited Carey v. King in support of dismissal for a self-represented prisoner’s failure to notify the court of a change of address.
Effect
The order disposed of the case because of filing-fee, application, communication, and address-compliance problems; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights allegations.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.