Shumate v. Engram
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-06901
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Shumate v. Engram, Judge Illman dismissed the complaint without prejudice, denied several motions, and allowed 28 days to refile a compliant complaint.
Benjamin T. Shumate must file a complaint that identifies specific defendants and explains their alleged constitutional violations if he wants to continue the case. The unidentified defendants are not required to respond to the dismissed second amended complaint at this stage.
What happened
In Shumate v. Engram, Benjamin T. Shumate, a detainee representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law known as Section 1983. The court had previously dismissed his earlier filings with permission to amend, but found that his second amended complaint still did not identify many defendants or explain how each violated his constitutional rights.
The court dismissed the second amended complaint without prejudice, meaning Shumate may file another complaint. It instructed him to focus on a few related claims, identify specific defendants, explain each defendant’s conduct, include all claims, and limit the complaint and exhibits to 25 pages. The court also denied his request for 400 additional pages, denied his motions to amend and appoint counsel without prejudice, and denied his request to proceed without paying fees as moot because he was already proceeding that way.
Judge Robert M. Illman issued the order on March 12, 2025. Shumate may refile within 28 days, but the court warned that failing to do so will result in dismissal of the case.
The detailed version
- Shumate v. Engram · No. 3:24-cv-06901
- Charles Breyer
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
Benjamin T. Shumate, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and then amended it. The court dismissed those filings with leave to amend and allowed him to file a second amended complaint.
Shumate filed a second amended complaint and then filed motions to amend the defendants, supplement the record, appoint counsel, and proceed without paying filing fees. The court stated that the second amended complaint followed some instructions from its earlier screening order, but did not identify many specific defendants or explain how they violated his constitutional rights. His motion to amend removed many defendants and sought to add several unidentified defendants. Based on the filings, the court could not determine which individual defendants were allegedly responsible for the constitutional violations.
Appointment of Counsel
The court denied the motion to appoint counsel. It explained that there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case and that a court may ask a lawyer to represent a person proceeding without paying fees only in exceptional circumstances. The court considers the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, considering the complexity of the legal issues. The court found that Shumate had presented his claims adequately and that the issues were not complex.
Rulings
The court dismissed the second amended complaint without prejudice. It allowed Shumate to refile within 28 days of the order. The new complaint must focus on a few related claims, identify the specific defendants, describe how each defendant violated his constitutional rights, and include every claim he wants to present. The complaint and exhibits may not exceed 25 pages, and Shumate may not incorporate material from earlier complaints by reference.
The court denied the motion to supply 400 extra pages. It denied the motions to amend and appoint counsel without prejudice. It denied the motion to proceed without paying filing fees as moot because Shumate was already proceeding without paying those fees. The court warned that failing to amend within the designated time will result in dismissal of the case. It also directed Shumate to keep the court informed of any address change and warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.