Reybol v. Force
- Kang
- 3:25-cv-03086
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, Judge Kang recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Reybol ignored court orders and failed to pursue it.
Arcelio Joseph Reybol is affected by the recommendation to dismiss his case without prejudice. The unnamed defendants are affected by the termination recommendation, although they had not been served.
What happened
In Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, Arcelio Joseph Reybol filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that request because his financial information was incomplete and inconsistent, but allowed him to submit a corrected application or pay the fee.
Reybol did neither by the deadline and did not ask for more time. He also did not respond to the court’s later order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed or to correct the fee-waiver application. The defendants had not yet been served.
Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failing to follow court orders and failing to pursue the case. The order to show cause was made absolute, the case was reassigned to a district judge, and Reybol was told he could object within 14 days after receiving the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Reybol v. Force · No. 3:25-cv-03086
- Kang
- Dec. 9, 2025
Background
Arcelio Joseph Reybol filed the original complaint on April 4, 2025, and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee based on inability to pay. On June 23, 2025, the court denied that application without prejudice because his financial affidavit was incomplete and inconsistent. The court gave him until July 21, 2025, to file a corrected application or pay the $405 filing fee.
Reybol did not file a corrected application, pay the filing fee, or request an extension. On October 22, 2025, the court issued an order to show cause, requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to pursue it and failure to comply with court orders. The court also allowed him to respond by filing an explanation, correcting his fee-waiver application, or paying the filing fee by November 14, 2025. Reybol did none of those things and did not request additional time. The defendants had not been served.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to pursue a case or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order. It considered five factors: the public’s interest in resolving litigation promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, possible prejudice to the defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe alternatives were available.
The court found that the first, second, fourth, and fifth factors favored dismissal. The third factor—possible prejudice to the defendants—only marginally favored dismissal because the defendants had not been served, although continued delay could cause evidence to be lost or become harder to locate. The court also concluded that lesser sanctions were not practical or proportionate in this case, particularly because Reybol was proceeding without a lawyer and had sought permission not to pay the filing fee.
Recommendation and Procedure
Judge Peter H. Kang ordered that the order to show cause be made absolute and recommended dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to diligently pursue the case and failure to obey court orders. The recommendation specifically cited Reybol’s failure to respond to the October 22, 2025 order to show cause and his failure to file a corrected application after the June 23, 2025 order.
Because the defendants had not been served and the parties had not all consented to a magistrate judge’s authority, the case was ordered reassigned to a district judge for resolution of the report and recommendation. Reybol may file an objection within 14 days after receiving the report. The opinion is a report and recommendation; it does not state that the district judge had entered the final dismissal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.