Hill v. Mendosa
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-07375
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hill v. Mendosa, Judge Rogers granted reconsideration, reopened the case, and required Hill to submit a filing-fee waiver application.
Cymeyon V. Hill, whose case was reopened and whose complaint was reinstated, must submit a non-prisoner filing-fee waiver application within 28 days to avoid dismissal without prejudice.
What happened
Hill v. Mendosa was previously dismissed because Hill did not timely submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Hill said he never received the notice setting the deadline.
The court accepted that explanation and granted Hill’s request to reconsider the dismissal. It reopened the case, canceled the earlier dismissal, and restored Hill’s complaint, but it did not yet review the complaint’s claims.
Within 28 days, Hill must submit the required application and supporting information. Judge Rogers said the case will be reviewed afterward; if Hill does not submit the application, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Mendosa · No. 4:20-cv-07375
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 14, 2021
Background
The court had dismissed this civil-rights action without prejudice on December 7, 2020, because Plaintiff Cymeyon V. Hill had not timely paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed without paying it. The deadline was November 30, 2020, and a Clerk’s notice dated October 21, 2020, had informed Hill of that requirement.
Hill moved for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) allows a court to provide relief from a final judgment or order for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Hill argued that he never received the Clerk’s notice.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the record showed Hill’s failure to respond resulted from his not receiving the notice. It concluded that these circumstances provided a basis for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1), which covers mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
The court also determined that Hill, described as a civil detainee, was not a “prisoner” subject to the prisoner-related provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. As a non-prisoner, Hill was required to submit an affidavit containing enough information for the court to determine whether he was unable to pay the filing fee.
Ruling and next steps
The court granted Hill’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk to reopen the action, vacated the December 7, 2020, order of dismissal without prejudice, and reinstated the complaint filed October 13, 2020.
The court ordered Hill to file a completed non-prisoner application to proceed without paying the filing fee within 28 days of the order. He must answer all questions on the forms and provide any required documentation. The court will review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) only after Hill files the application. If the court grants permission to proceed without paying the fee, that review will occur; if Hill does not file the application, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of Hill’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.