Vera v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County
- 3:22-cv-02426
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Vera v. Superior Court, the court dismissed Michael John Vera’s habeas case without prejudice for failing to pay or seek fee relief and denied a certificate allowing an appeal.
Michael John Vera, whose habeas action was dismissed without prejudice and whose certificate of appealability was denied.
What happened
In Vera v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, Michael John Vera filed a petition asking for a court order concerning his custody. The clerk told him that he needed to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it, but he did neither by the deadline.
The court also noted that Vera appeared to no longer be in custody. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Vera may ask to reopen it by paying the full filing fee or submitting a complete application to proceed without paying it.
The court denied a certificate of appealability because reasonable judges would not disagree with the dismissal or conclude that the case should proceed. The opinion does not identify the judge by name; it was signed by the court on October 28, 2022.
The detailed version
- Vera v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County · No. 3:22-cv-02426
- Nov. 4, 2022
Background
Michael John Vera filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on April 20, 2022. A habeas petition asks a court to review whether a person’s custody is lawful. On the same day, the clerk notified Vera that the case was deficient because he had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it. The court gave him 28 days to correct the deficiency and warned that the case could be dismissed.
The deadline passed, and Vera did not submit the required documents. The court also noted that it appeared Vera was no longer in custody.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice. This means the dismissal did not bar Vera from seeking to reopen the action. The court stated that any motion to reopen must include either payment of the full filing fee or a complete application to proceed without paying it.
The court also denied a certificate of appealability. Such a certificate is required for an appeal in this type of case, and the court concluded that reasonable judges would not disagree with its conclusion or find that the case deserved to proceed further.
Judge and date
The opinion does not provide the judge’s name. It states that it was ordered on October 28, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.