Washington v. Muela
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-03057
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jason Levette Washington v. R. Muela, Judge Corl denied Washington’s motions because the case was closed and no amended complaint existed.
Jason Levette Washington’s motions were denied. The requested partial summary adjudication concerned R. Muela and Ivan Satterfield; the emergency-injunction and restitution motion was also denied as moot.
What happened
In Jason Levette Washington v. R. Muela, the court had dismissed Washington’s complaint after screening it and gave him until August 7, 2025, to file an amended complaint. He did not file one by October 3, 2025, so the court entered judgment for R. Muela.
Washington then asked for partial summary adjudication against R. Muela and Ivan Satterfield, along with emergency injunctive relief and restitution. The court said there was no amended complaint supporting those motions and that the case’s final judgment meant the motion for partial summary adjudication could not be treated as an amended complaint.
Judge Corl denied both motions as moot. The opinion does not reopen the case or authorize Washington to amend his complaint.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Muela · No. 3:25-cv-03057
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Dec. 17, 2025
Background
The court previously screened Washington’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a statute requiring courts to review certain complaints filed by people who cannot pay filing fees. The court dismissed the complaint and allowed Washington until August 7, 2025, to file an amended complaint. When he had not filed an amended complaint by October 3, 2025, the court entered judgment in favor of R. Muela and against Washington.
Motions
Washington moved for partial summary adjudication against R. Muela and Ivan Satterfield. He also moved for ex parte emergency injunctive relief and restitution. The court had previously explained that Washington had not filed an amended complaint on which to base his motions.
Ruling
The court denied both motions as moot. It also held that, because judgment had already been entered and the case was closed, Washington’s motion for partial summary adjudication could not be treated as an amended complaint. The order did not grant permission to amend the complaint or reopen the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.