Prasad v. County of San Mateo
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-00975
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Prasad v. County of San Mateo, Judge Tigar denied without prejudice Prasad’s request to reconsider and reopen his dismissed case, and ordered forms sent.
Kevin Prasad’s request to reconsider and reopen his dismissed civil-rights action was denied without prejudice. He may file a renewed request with the required application and documents; the defendants were not required to litigate the underlying claims in this order.
What happened
In Prasad v. County of San Mateo, Kevin Prasad had filed a civil-rights case without a lawyer. The Clerk told him to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it, but he did not respond. The court then dismissed the case without prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants.
Prasad asked the court to reconsider and reopen the case, saying he never received the Clerk’s notice and could not obtain an updated application to proceed without paying the fee. He also said he had filed another complaint with similar allegations in a separate case because he thought the court had not received his original complaint.
The court denied Prasad’s request without prejudice, meaning he may file another request supported by the proper application and required documents. The Clerk was directed to send him two copies of the application. The court also said any renewed request must address whether the separate case is duplicative and, if so, identify which case he wants to maintain. Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order.
The detailed version
- Prasad v. County of San Mateo · No. 4:22-cv-00975
- Jon Tigar
- June 3, 2022
Background
Kevin Prasad filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk notified him that the case was deficient because he had neither paid the filing fee nor filed an application to proceed without paying the fee. The notice directed him to respond within 28 days, but he did not do so.
On May 26, 2022, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Prasad had not filed the required application. The court allowed him to seek reopening by submitting a motion accompanied by either the filing fee or a properly completed application with the required supporting documents. The court entered judgment for the defendants that same day.
Request to Reconsider and Reopen
Prasad asked the court to reconsider the dismissal and reopen the action. He said he never received the Clerk’s notice and had been unable to obtain an updated application. He stated that he assumed the court had not received his original complaint, so he filed another complaint containing similar allegations in a separate case numbered 22-cv-02720-JST.
Ruling
The court denied without prejudice Prasad’s request to reconsider and reopen the action. The court stated that he could file a renewed motion to reopen if it included an application on the proper form with the required supporting documents. The Clerk was directed to send Prasad two copies of the application.
The court also directed Prasad to address in any renewed motion whether the separate case is duplicative of this action. The court explained that duplicative or repetitive litigation may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious, and that if the two actions are duplicative, Prasad should identify which action he wants to maintain and dismiss the other. The order terminated the pending request, ECF No. 8. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.