Hill v. Clinton
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-04660
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Hill v. Clinton, Judge Rogers dismissed Joshua Hill’s habeas case without prejudice because he neither paid the fee nor submitted the required application.
Joshua Spencer Hill’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and the court closed the file. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the named respondent.
What happened
In Hill v. Clinton, Joshua Spencer Hill, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition asking for a court order concerning his imprisonment against Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The court told Hill that the case could not proceed unless he paid the filing fee or submitted a completed application to proceed without paying it. Hill did neither within 28 days and did not otherwise contact the court.
Judge Yvonne Rogers dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the clerk to end pending motions and close the file.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Clinton · No. 4:20-cv-04660
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
Joshua Spencer Hill, identified in the order as a state prisoner, filed an action that was opened as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The order does not decide whether Hill was entitled to habeas relief.
Filing-fee requirement
On the day the action was filed, the court notified Hill that the case could not proceed until he either paid the filing fee or submitted a completed prisoner application to proceed without paying the fee. The clerk sent him a blank application and instructed him to pay the fee or return the completed application within 28 days, warning that the action would be dismissed if he did not do so.
The 28-day deadline passed. Hill had not paid the filing fee, returned the application, or otherwise communicated with the court.
Ruling
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The court also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the file. Because the dismissal was based on Hill’s failure to satisfy the filing requirement, the order did not reach the merits of his habeas petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.