Reybol v. OnTrac Logistics
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-00389
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Reybol v. OnTrac Logistics, Judge Hixson ordered Reybol to explain why his case should not be dismissed after he failed to complete his fee-waiver application.
Arcelio Joseph Reybol, whose application to proceed without paying the filing fee had been denied without prejudice and who was ordered to explain his failure to submit a complete application or pay the filing fee. The case was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Reybol v. OnTrac Logistics, Arcelio Joseph Reybol submitted an incomplete and unclear application asking to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court could not evaluate his finances, including because he did not describe his income sources and listed only “Halloween Chocolate <$100.00” as a monthly expense.
The court had denied the application without prejudice and ordered Reybol either to submit a complete application or pay the filing fee by February 21, 2024. Reybol did not respond.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Reybol to file a written explanation by March 7, 2024, stating why the case should not be dismissed. The order warned that failing to respond would be treated as an admission that he did not intend to pursue the case and that the case would likely be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Reybol v. OnTrac Logistics · No. 3:24-cv-00389
- James Donato
- Feb. 26, 2024
Background
Arcelio Joseph Reybol filed this action and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee on January 23, 2024. The court found the application incomplete and incomprehensible. For example, Reybol appeared to report money from a business, profession, or self-employment and income from stocks, bonds, or royalties, but did not describe each source or state the amount received from each. He listed “Halloween Chocolate <$100.00” as his only monthly expense.
Because the court could not evaluate Reybol’s assets or otherwise assess his application, it denied the application without prejudice and directed him to file either a complete application or pay the filing fee by February 21, 2024. The court warned that failure to do so would lead it to recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute. Reybol did not respond.
Order
The court ordered Reybol to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed. It required a written response by March 7, 2024. If Reybol filed a response, the court stated that it would either issue an order based on that response or hold a hearing on March 21, 2024.
The order did not dismiss the case. It warned that failing to submit a written response would be treated as an admission that Reybol did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.