Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 19, 2023

Fernandez v. Jusino

Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Docket
3:23-cv-02399
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fernandez v. Jusino, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed Fernandez’s federal prisoner petition without prejudice because she neither paid the fee nor filed the required application.

Who this affects

Ana J. Fernandez, the petitioner and a federal prisoner, was affected by the dismissal. T. Jusino, identified as the warden and respondent, was the opposing party.

What happened

In Fernandez v. Jusino, Ana J. Fernandez, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under federal law asking the court to review her custody. The clerk told her that the case could not proceed until she paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it.

The court gave Fernandez 28 days to pay the fee or return the completed application. More than 28 days passed, and she did neither. The opinion does not address whether her custody-related claims had merit.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file. The court said any motion to reopen must include the full filing fee or a completed application to proceed without paying it.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fernandez v. Jusino · No. 3:23-cv-02399
Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Date
July 19, 2023

Background

Ana J. Fernandez, identified as a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 16, 2023. The case was initially assigned to a magistrate judge and was later reassigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin because of a Ninth Circuit decision concerning a magistrate judge’s authority to dismiss a case during initial screening when defendants had not consented to proceed before that judge.

Filing-fee requirement

On May 17, 2023, the clerk notified Fernandez that the case could not proceed until she either paid the full filing fee or submitted a completed prisoner application to proceed without paying the fee. The clerk sent her a blank application and gave her 28 days to meet one of those requirements. More than 28 days passed, and Fernandez had done neither.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice. It directed the clerk to close the file and stated that any motion to reopen must include either the full filing fee or a completed application to proceed without paying it. The opinion did not decide the merits of Fernandez’s petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.