Reybol v. State of California

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Reybol v. State of California

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARCELIO JOSEPH REYBOL, Case No. 25-cv-02712-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Arcelio Joseph Reybol initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). Based on the information provided in his 15 application, the Court was unable to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma 16 pauperis. For instance, when asked if he is presently employed, Plaintiff answered “No,” but he 17 wrote “Bloomber + Threadneedle” next to his answer. ECF No. 2 at 1. Plaintiff also crossed out 18 many of the printed words on the first page. Id. When asked if he has received any money from 19 certain listed sources within the past 12 months, Plaintiff checked yes for “Business, Profession or 20 self employment,” “Income from stocks, bonds, or royalties,” and “Federal or State welfare 21 payments, Social Security or other government source,” but he did not state the amount received 22 from each. Id. at 2. When asked, “Do you own or are you buying a home,” Plaintiff answered 23 yes, but he did not indicate the estimated market value and the amount of any mortgage payment. 24 Id. at 3. As such, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application and directed him to file a revised in 25 forma pauperis application by April 18, 2025. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has failed to respond. 26 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 27 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626

, 629-33 1 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. 2 || Plaintiff shall file a declaration by May 8, 2025. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a 3 written response will be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case 4 || will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the 5 deadline above. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: April 24, 2025

THOMAS S. HIXSON 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11

"a 14 Sey

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown