Hill v. Tyler
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-04797
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Hill v. Tyler, Judge Rogers denied Cymeyon Hill’s fee-waiver and counsel requests, rejected his request to file a criminal complaint, and ordered a corrected application.
Cymeyon V. Hill was required to submit a non-prisoner fee-waiver application or pay the full filing fee within 28 days. His civil-rights claims were not decided, and the defendants were not found liable or cleared of liability.
What happened
Hill v. Tyler began when Cymeyon V. Hill, representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint about conditions at Salinas Valley State Prison. He also submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, asked for a lawyer, and requested forms for filing a federal criminal complaint.
The court denied Hill’s filing-fee application because it was incomplete, but allowed him to submit the correct non-prisoner form within 28 days. It denied his request to file a criminal complaint and denied his request for appointed counsel. The court said it would review his civil-rights complaint separately after receiving the proper application.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order on August 6, 2020. The order states that failure to submit the completed application or pay the full filing fee would result in dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Tyler · No. 4:20-cv-04797
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 6, 2020
Background
Cymeyon V. Hill, proceeding without a lawyer, opened this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He identified himself as a civil detainee and complained about conditions at Salinas Valley State Prison. The opinion indicates that his complaint included a deliberate-indifference claim concerning serious medical needs against Drs. M. Tyler, G. Ramos, and M. Sing, based on an incident in May 2020.
Hill submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee using a prisoner form from another federal district. The Clerk notified him that he had used the wrong form and sent him the district’s prisoner application, directing him to complete it within 28 days. The record did not show that Hill responded. Hill also filed a motion asking for appointment of counsel and a letter asking for forms and instructions to file a federal criminal complaint.
Rulings
The court denied Hill’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it was incomplete. The court explained that, as a civil detainee, Hill was not a “prisoner” subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, so the prisoner form was not appropriate. The court directed the Clerk to send Hill a non-prisoner application and required him to provide enough financial information for the court to decide whether he qualified to proceed without paying the fee and whether a partial filing fee could be assessed. The denial was without prejudice.
The court denied Hill’s request to file a criminal complaint. It explained that a private citizen does not have a legally recognized interest in another person’s prosecution or nonprosecution.
The court denied Hill’s motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. The order states that this denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if the circumstances warranted it.
Next step ordered by the court
Hill was ordered to file a completed non-prisoner application within 28 days of the order and to provide any required documentation. The court also directed him to report any trust account maintained for him at the facility where he was detained. The court stated that it would screen the civil-rights complaint in a separate written order after receiving the proper application. It further stated that failure to submit the completed application or pay the full filing fee by the deadline would result in dismissal without prejudice. The order terminated Docket Nos. 2, 3, and 4.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.