Paleveda v. Alameda County
- Robert Illman
- 5:24-cv-08716
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Nicholas Paleveda v. Alameda County, Judge Freeman struck unrelated claims and defendants, leaving one First Amendment claim and setting a dispositive-motion schedule.
Nicholas Paleveda’s case was narrowed to one First Amendment claim against Deputy J. Buenrostro; the other claims and defendants were removed, and defendants were directed to address the remaining claim in a dispositive motion.
What happened
In Nicholas Paleveda v. Alameda County, Nicholas Paleveda, a pretrial detainee proceeding without a lawyer, sued under a federal civil-rights law against Santa Rita Jail and Alameda County. His amended complaint included one claim the court found legally sufficient, along with unrelated claims against other defendants.
The court had previously given Paleveda time to file a second amended complaint removing the unrelated claims and defendants. He did not meet the extended deadline, so the amended complaint still violated the federal rules governing pleading and joining claims and parties.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the case proceed only on Paleveda’s First Amendment claim against Deputy J. Buenrostro concerning denial of a kosher diet. The court struck all other claims and defendants, directed service of the lawsuit on Buenrostro, and ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion ending the case within 91 days.
The detailed version
- Paleveda v. Alameda County · No. 5:24-cv-08716
- Robert Illman
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
Nicholas Paleveda filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while proceeding without a lawyer. The opinion states that he appeared to be a pretrial detainee at Santa Rita Jail. He initially sued Santa Rita Jail and Alameda County.
The court previously screened the complaint and dismissed it while allowing Paleveda to amend it to correct identified deficiencies. His amended complaint corrected some problems and stated one legally sufficient claim, but it also continued to include unrelated claims against numerous defendants. The court ordered him to file a second amended complaint limited to related claims and defendants. After granting an extension through June 20, 2025, the court later set a July 22, 2025 deadline. Paleveda did not file the required second amended complaint.
Court’s ruling
The court held that the amended complaint’s unrelated claims and defendants violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 20(a)(2). Because Paleveda did not correct the problem, the court struck the unrelated claims and defendants rather than allowing them to remain in the case.
The case will proceed only on the First Amendment claim against Defendant Deputy J. Buenrostro based on the alleged denial of a kosher diet. The Clerk was ordered to terminate the other defendants and to send Buenrostro the lawsuit documents and a request to waive formal service. The court also ordered defendants, within 91 days after the order was filed, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claim. The order set deadlines for Paleveda’s opposition and defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would occur unless the court later ordered one.
Other instructions
The order states that discovery may proceed without another order under the cited federal and local rules. It also requires Paleveda to serve copies of his communications with the court on defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, comply with court orders, and file requests for extensions by the relevant deadline with a showing of good cause. The order warns that failure to prosecute or failure to oppose a summary-judgment motion could have consequences, including possible dismissal or judgment without a trial.
Disposition
The court struck all claims and defendants other than the First Amendment claim against Buenrostro, directed service, and established a schedule for a dispositive motion. It did not decide the merits of the remaining claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.