Rothschild v. Gildred
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-01713
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Rothschild v. Gildred: Judge Cisneros gave Rothschild until June 15, 2023, to renew his incomplete fee-waiver application.
Thomas Etienne Rothschild, whose application to proceed without paying the filing fee remained unresolved and was subject to a June 15, 2023 deadline; the case was also subject to possible reassignment if he failed to file the application.
What happened
In Rothschild v. Gildred, Thomas Etienne Rothschild asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously denied his application because it was incomplete.
Rothschild did not file an amended application in this case by the earlier deadline. Although he filed amended applications in a related case, the court said he had to file a separate application here.
The court gave Rothschild until June 15, 2023, to submit a renewed application and warned that failing to do so could lead to reassignment and a recommendation that the application be denied. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros issued the order.
The detailed version
- Rothschild v. Gildred · No. 3:23-cv-01713
- James Donato
- June 1, 2023
Background
Thomas Etienne Rothschild applied to proceed without paying the filing fee on April 10, 2023. The court denied that application without prejudice on May 2, 2023, because it was incomplete, and gave him until May 19, 2023, to file an amended application.
No amended application was filed on this case's docket by that deadline. The court noted that Rothschild had filed amended applications in a related case, but explained that the two cases' relationship did not eliminate the requirement to file a separate amended application in this case.
Ruling
The court gave Rothschild until June 15, 2023, to submit a renewed application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The order warned that failing to do so could result in reassignment of the action to a district judge and a report and recommendation that the application be denied. The Clerk was ordered to include an application form with the order. The court did not deny the renewed application in this order.
Effect
The order addressed only Rothschild's filing-fee application and set a further deadline. It did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.