Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 3, 2020

Hill v. Black

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:20-cv-05900
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hill v. Black, Judge Rogers denied Cymeyon Hill’s request to proceed without filing fees and ordered a complete application within 28 days.

Who this affects

Cymeyon Hill’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee; the underlying civil-rights claims were not decided in this order.

What happened

Hill v. Black began as a civil-rights case under Section 1983 concerning conditions at Salinas Valley State Prison. Cymeyon Hill filed the case without a lawyer and submitted an application intended for prisoners to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court determined that Hill was a civil detainee, not a prisoner covered by the prisoner-specific filing-fee rules. Non-prisoners must provide enough financial information for the court to decide whether they qualify to proceed without paying the fee, but Hill’s application did not provide enough information.

Judge Rogers denied Hill’s application without prejudice because it was incomplete. The court ordered Hill to submit the required non-prisoner application and supporting documents within 28 days; failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hill v. Black · No. 4:20-cv-05900
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Sept. 3, 2020

Background

Cymeyon Hill filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning conditions at Salinas Valley State Prison. The case was initially filed in the Eastern District of California and was later transferred to the Northern District of California. Hill filed without a lawyer and submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to proceed without paying the filing fee, using a form for prisoners.

Reason for the ruling

The court explained that Hill was a civil detainee, not a “prisoner” subject to the prisoner-specific provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Those provisions therefore did not apply. As a non-prisoner, Hill was required to submit an affidavit with enough financial information for the court to determine whether he was unable to pay the filing fee and whether a partial fee might be appropriate.

The court found that the prisoner application was not the proper form and that the record did not contain sufficient financial information. The court therefore could not determine whether Hill qualified to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Order

The court denied Hill’s application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because it was incomplete. It ordered Hill to file a completed non-prisoner application and provide any required documentation within 28 days of the order. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to send Hill a blank non-prisoner application, and the order terminated Docket No. 2.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.