Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 4, 2024

Handy v. Warden

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:23-cv-02243
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Handy v. Warden, Judge Tigar extended the deadline to pay the filing fee or request permission to proceed without paying it.

Who this affects

Michael Dwayne Handy must either pay the $5 filing fee or file an application to proceed without paying it by February 16, 2024, or the action will be dismissed without prejudice as stated in the order.

What happened

Michael Dwayne Handy filed a petition challenging his state imprisonment under federal law, but he had not paid the $5 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it.

Handy argued that the filing fee did not apply to this type of petition and violated the right to petition the government. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that people filing these petitions generally must pay the fee unless they qualify to proceed without paying it.

In Handy v. Warden, Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Handy until February 16, 2024, to pay the fee or submit the required application. The court stated that failing to meet that deadline would result in dismissal without prejudice, without further notice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Handy v. Warden · No. 4:23-cv-02243
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Jan. 4, 2024

Background

Michael Dwayne Handy, a state prisoner housed at Kern Valley State Prison, filed a petition seeking relief under either 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241. The court had previously informed him that the action was deficient because he had neither paid the $5 filing fee nor filed an application to proceed without paying the fee.

Handy objected to the filing-fee requirement. He argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply to petitions under §§ 2241, 2254, and 2255 because they are not civil actions under that law. He also argued that the First Amendment right to petition the government prevents the government from charging a filing fee.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Handy’s argument that he was not required to pay a filing fee. It explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1914 requires parties filing a petition for relief from imprisonment to pay a $5 fee, unless they qualify to proceed without paying it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court also stated that § 1915(b), which requires prisoners proceeding without prepaying fees in covered civil actions to pay the full fee over time, does not apply to these petitions. That means that if Handy is allowed to proceed without paying the fee, he need not pay the $5 fee; it does not eliminate the initial fee requirement for everyone.

Ruling and effect

The court granted Handy an extension of time to February 16, 2024, to either pay the $5 filing fee or file an application to proceed without paying it. The court stated that failing to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, without further notice. The order did not decide the substance of Handy’s petition.

Disposition

The court granted an extension of time to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed without paying it.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.