Prasad v. County of San Mateo
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-02720
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Prasad v. County of San Mateo, Judge Tigar granted Kevin Prasad more time and forms to seek a fee waiver in his civil-rights case.
Kevin B. Prasad, the self-represented plaintiff, received additional time and application forms needed to address the filing-fee requirement; the underlying defendants’ claims were not decided.
What happened
Kevin B. Prasad filed this civil-rights case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk told him the case was deficient because he had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it.
Prasad asked for more time and copies of the updated application, saying the San Mateo Sheriff County’s Office had lost the application he prepared and he could not obtain the updated version. The court granted both requests and set July 5, 2022, as the deadline for filing the application.
The Clerk was directed to send Prasad two copies of the application, and the court warned that failing to file it on time would result in dismissal without further notice for failure to follow a court order. Judge Tigar’s order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Prasad v. County of San Mateo · No. 4:22-cv-02720
- Jon Tigar
- June 3, 2022
Background
Kevin B. Prasad filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state or local actors. The Clerk informed him that the action was deficient because he had not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed without paying it.
Prasad requested an extension of time to file the application and copies of the updated application. He stated that the San Mateo Sheriff County’s Office had lost the application he had prepared for the court and that he had been unable to obtain the updated version.
The opinion also notes that Prasad had stated in a prior related proceeding, No. 22-cv-00975, that this action raised the same claims. The court cautioned that duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Ruling
The court found good cause and granted Prasad’s requests for an extension of time and copies of the updated application. It required him to file the application by July 5, 2022, and directed the Clerk to send him two copies.
The court warned that failure to file the application within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice for failure to comply with a court order. The order terminated ECF No. 5. It did not reach the merits of Prasad’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.