Ellawendy v. CSUMB Police Department
- Lucy Koh
- 5:19-cv-08417
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Ellawendy v. CSUMB Police Department, Judge Van Keulen ordered Ellawendy to re-file a stand-alone complaint containing all relevant allegations.
The plaintiff, Abelfatah Ellawendy, had to file a complete stand-alone amended complaint by May 28, 2020. The defendants’ response deadline would begin when that complaint was filed.
What happened
In Ellawendy v. CSUMB Police Department, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint after an earlier screening order identified allegations that could proceed.
The court found that the new filing only amended the first amended complaint and did not include the allegations previously found proper. It directed the plaintiff to file a complete, stand-alone amended complaint by May 28, 2020.
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered that defendants’ time to respond would begin when the proper amended complaint was filed. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ellawendy v. CSUMB Police Department · No. 5:19-cv-08417
- Lucy Koh
- May 18, 2020
Background
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 11, 2020, in response to the court’s April 10, 2020 screening order. The court explained that the filing contained only amendments to the first amended complaint and did not repeat the allegations that the screening order had found proper.
Issue
The issue was whether the second amended complaint was properly presented as a complete pleading. The court stated that an amended complaint must be a stand-alone document containing all relevant factual allegations and that the plaintiff could not rely on allegations in earlier filings.
Ruling
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered the plaintiff to file a proper amended complaint containing all relevant factual allegations by May 28, 2020. The court stated that defendants’ time to respond would run from the date the proper amended complaint was filed.
Effect
This was a procedural order about how the complaint had to be filed. The opinion did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s claims or state that the case was dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.