Briggs v. Addenton
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-04919
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Briggs v. Addenton, Judge Chen dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and denied the application to proceed without fees.
Ronnie L. Briggs, whose complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and whose application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied without prejudice; the defendants named in the complaint were Brian Addenton, Aaron Baker, “Anderson,” the Pittsburg Police Department, and Julie Nie.
What happened
In Ronnie L. Briggs v. Brian Addenton, et al., the court dismissed Mr. Briggs’s complaint because it did not identify what any defendant did wrong or how Mr. Briggs was harmed. The court gave him one chance to file an amended complaint explaining what each defendant did, and when and where it happened.
The court also denied Mr. Briggs’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it lacked a required account statement. The court also identified four prior cases as qualifying dismissals under the prisoner filing-fee statute. Mr. Briggs may renew the application by submitting the statement and showing imminent danger or that at least two of those cases do not qualify.
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered Mr. Briggs to file an amended complaint and either renew the fee application or pay the filing fee by November 1, 2024. If he did neither, the case would be dismissed as stated in the order.
The detailed version
- Briggs v. Addenton · No. 3:23-cv-04919
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 19, 2024
Background
Ronnie L. Briggs sued Brian Addenton, Aaron Baker, “Anderson,” the Pittsburg Police Department, and Julie Nie. The complaint stated that Brian Addenton “played with the court paperwork and had me sent here,” but did not explain how those actions harmed Mr. Briggs. It did not identify any action, much less a wrongful action, by the other defendants. The court also found that the initial complaint was largely illegible.
Complaint ruling
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Leave to amend means Mr. Briggs was allowed one opportunity to file a corrected complaint. The court directed him to identify what each defendant did, where and when it happened, and how the defendant’s actions harmed him. The amended complaint had to be a complete statement of his claims, use the caption and civil case number in the order, and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page.
The order set November 1, 2024, as the deadline for the amended complaint. It stated that if Mr. Briggs did not file one by that deadline, the case would be dismissed with prejudice.
Application to proceed without paying the filing fee
Mr. Briggs also applied for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that application without prejudice because it was incomplete: Mr. Briggs had not submitted the certified account statement required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The court also cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which restricts a prisoner’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee after three or more qualifying dismissals, unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court identified four prior related proceedings as strikes and described the reasons for those dismissals. To renew the application, Mr. Briggs had to submit the required account statement and show either that he faced imminent danger or that at least two of the identified cases were not strikes.
Mr. Briggs could renew the application by November 1, 2024, or pay the filing fee instead. If he did neither, the action would be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. The order disposed of Docket No. 6. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.