Reybol v. Force

Background

Arcelio Joseph Reybol filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as an in forma pauperis or IFP application. The court denied that application on June 23, 2025, because Reybol had not provided enough information about his assets and liabilities. The court allowed him to file a corrected IFP application by July 21, 2025.

That deadline passed by more than three months. The order states that Reybol had not filed a corrected application or asked for more time. The earlier order had warned that failing to file a proper application or pay the filing fee could lead to consequences including dismissal.

Order to Show Cause

The court issued an order requiring Reybol to respond by November 14, 2025. He must choose one of three options: file a corrected IFP application addressing the earlier deficiencies; give up IFP status and pay the $405 filing fee; or file a written explanation of why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward, or failure to follow the court’s orders.

If Reybol files a corrected IFP application by the deadline, the court will treat that filing as his response to the order, and he will not need to file a separate written response. If he needs more time, he must explain in a written response why additional time is needed and how much time he requests.

Disposition and Possible Consequence

The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, Judge Peter H. Kang warned that failure to respond by November 14, 2025, would lead the court to issue a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The court also stated that the clerk would be directed to reassign the case to a district judge to consider and act on that recommendation.