Kemp v. California Correctional Healthcare Services
- 3:24-cv-07281
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Eric S. Kemp v. California Correctional Healthcare Services, the court denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, reopened the case, and allowed an amended complaint.
Eric S. Kemp’s case was reopened, and he was given 28 days to file a Second Amended Complaint; the California Correctional Healthcare Services case therefore remained pending subject to that filing.
What happened
Eric S. Kemp v. California Correctional Healthcare Services concerns Kemp’s request to appeal without prepaying court fees after the court had dismissed his case for not filing an amended complaint on time.
The court denied that request because the earlier dismissal and judgment were without prejudice. It explained that it had not refused permission to amend; instead, it had dismissed the case because Kemp did not amend it, and later declined to reopen the case based on his proposed amended complaint.
The court vacated the judgment, reopened the case, and gave Kemp 28 days to file a second amended complaint addressing the identified problems. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal without further notice. The judge’s name is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text.
The detailed version
- Kemp v. California Correctional Healthcare Services · No. 3:24-cv-07281
- Nov. 4, 2025
Background
The court had previously dismissed Eric S. Kemp’s case and entered judgment on March 6, 2025, after Kemp did not file an amended complaint within the permitted time. Kemp later told the court that he had not known about a deadline to amend and submitted a proposed amended complaint. The court treated that letter as a request to reopen the case but denied the request on September 16, 2025, finding that the proposed complaint did not state a legally cognizable claim.
On October 30, 2025, Kemp moved for permission to appeal without prepaying court fees. He asserted that the court had erred by dismissing his complaint without allowing him to amend.
Court’s analysis
The court denied Kemp’s motion because the dismissal and judgment were without prejudice. The court stated that it had not denied him permission to amend. Instead, it had dismissed the case because he failed to amend, and later declined to reopen the case after he submitted a proposed First Amended Complaint.
The court also repeated that the proposed complaint did not state a cognizable claim because Kemp had not alleged that performing the extraction at the prison with local anesthesia would be medically necessary; the provided text is incomplete at that point. The court further stated that he had not alleged a disability requiring accommodations.
Disposition
The court ordered the clerk to vacate the prior judgment and reopen the case. It gave Kemp 28 days from the date of the order to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The new complaint must use the caption and civil case number in the order, be labeled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,” include all claims and defendants he wishes to pursue, and not incorporate earlier complaints by reference. The court warned that failing to file a proper amended complaint on time would result in dismissal without further notice. The court also ordered the clerk to provide Kemp with a complaint form. The judge’s full name is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.