Okongo v. Santa Clara County

Background

Phillip Michael Okongo filed a civil-rights action concerning conditions at Santa Clara County Jail, where the opinion states he was incarcerated. In Case No. 23-cv-03576, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, identified deficiencies, and instructed Mr. Okongo to amend it.

Mr. Okongo then filed a document titled “Complaint.” Because the document did not appear to be an amended complaint in Case No. 23-cv-03576, the Clerk opened Case No. 24-cv-0105 as a new action. Mr. Okongo later filed an amended complaint in the first case and a “motion for supplemental jurisdiction” in the second case. After reassignment, the court reviewed both matters and found that they concerned the same incidents and were brought against the same defendants.

Rulings

The court did not believe Mr. Okongo intended to file a malicious action. Instead, it found that the second case appeared to have been opened because he had not labeled his filing as an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed Case No. 24-cv-0105 as opened in error. It stated that no filing fee was due in that case and denied as moot Mr. Okongo’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions in Case No. 24-cv-0105 and close that file.

Judge Edward M. Chen also granted Mr. Okongo an extension of time to amend the pleadings in Case No. 23-cv-03576. The amended complaint was due by November 1, 2024, and had to use the case caption and number stated in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that the amended complaint must provide a complete statement of the claims. If Mr. Okongo did not file one by the deadline, the court would proceed with the claims in the amended complaint already pending at Docket No. 15 and screen that pleading.