Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-02579
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School, Judge Hamilton denied Navarrette’s request for public funds for calls and supplies to prosecute his case.
Tomas Navarrette’s request for auxiliary funds was denied; the order also addressed the court’s inability to order relief against Santa Rita jail officials, who were not parties.
What happened
Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School involved Tomas Navarrette’s request for money to help prosecute his case while he was incarcerated in Santa Rita jail.
Navarrette asked for funds for phone calls and administrative supplies. The court explained that the law allowing people to proceed without paying filing fees does not authorize payments to a self-represented litigant for these purposes.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Navarrette’s motion for auxiliary funds. The court also said it could not order relief against Santa Rita jail officials because they were not parties, and that Navarrette had not shown an injury that would justify the requested relief.
The detailed version
- Navarrette v. 5 - Keys Charter School · No. 4:20-cv-02579
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 2, 2021
Background
Tomas Navarrette, a self-represented plaintiff, moved for “auxiliary funds.” He stated that he was incarcerated in Santa Rita jail and requested money for phone calls and administrative supplies needed to prosecute his case.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on the rule that public funds may be spent for an indigent litigant only when Congress has authorized that spending. It explained that the statute allowing a person to begin a lawsuit without paying court fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not authorize courts to pay funds to a self-represented litigant for purposes requested by the plaintiff.
The court added that Navarrette could ask Santa Rita jail staff for supplies and materials to the extent he was able. Because those officials were not parties to the case, the court said it had no jurisdiction—the legal power to order relief—against them. The court further stated that, even if they had been parties, Navarrette had not shown an injury caused by their conduct that would support the requested relief.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that Navarrette’s motion for auxiliary funds be denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.