Cathy v. Kuzmicz
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-05932
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cathy v. Kuzmicz, Judge Hamilton dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend and denied Cathy’s clarification and reconsideration motions.
Charles Ray Cathy, whose original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and whose motions were denied; the defendants were affected because the case was directed to proceed, if at all, through an amended complaint.
What happened
Cathy v. Kuzmicz involved Charles Ray Cathy, a state prisoner representing himself in a civil-rights case about legal mail and retaliation. The court had found some claims could proceed but that other allegations did not state a claim for relief.
Cathy filed motions asking for clarification and reconsideration and provided additional arguments and allegations about the deficient claims. The court understood him to want to amend the complaint and pursue all of his claims.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend and denied the motions for clarification and reconsideration. She ordered Cathy to file an amended complaint by December 23, 2019, including all claims he wished to pursue.
The detailed version
- Cathy v. Kuzmicz · No. 4:19-cv-05932
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
Charles Ray Cathy, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His original complaint raised multiple claims involving legal mail and retaliation.
The court previously determined that some claims were legally sufficient to proceed, while other allegations failed to state a claim for relief. The court gave Cathy a choice: proceed only with the claims that were legally sufficient, or file an amended complaint addressing the problems with the other claims.
Motions
Cathy filed motions for clarification and reconsideration. Those motions presented additional information, arguments, and allegations concerning the claims the court had found deficient. The court concluded that Cathy wanted to amend the complaint and pursue all of his claims.
Ruling
The court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. It denied Cathy’s motions for clarification and reconsideration, identified as Docket Nos. 3 and 4.
The court ordered Cathy to file an amended complaint by December 23, 2019. The amended complaint had to use the caption and civil case number in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, Cathy had to include every claim he wished to pursue, including claims the court had previously found legally sufficient. He could not incorporate the original complaint by reference.
The court also stated that Cathy was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change through a separate notice, and complying with court orders. The court warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.