Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified School District/Special Education Local Plan Area
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-03441
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Wilson v. Mount Diablo, Judge Chesney granted amendment but dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice because its claims duplicated another pending action.
Michael Geary Wilson’s First Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice because the court found that all of its claims were already asserted in a separate pending action. The named defendants were not required to litigate those claims in this case.
What happened
Michael Geary Wilson sued Mount Diablo Unified School District/Special Education Local Plan Area and others, asserting federal and state claims. He represented himself and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. After the court dismissed his federal claims and allowed limited amendment, Wilson asked to add nine claims and 28 defendants.
The court granted Wilson’s request to amend and treated his proposed First Amended Complaint as filed. But because Wilson was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court screened the amended complaint and found that all of its claims were already included in a separate action pending before the same court.
In Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified School District/Special Education Local Plan Area, Judge Maxine Chesney dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice to Wilson pursuing those claims in the separate pending action, No. 3:20-cv-3668-MMC.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified School District/Special Education Local Plan Area · No. 3:19-cv-03441
- Maxine Chesney
- June 25, 2020
Background
Michael Geary Wilson filed the action on June 17, 2019, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees. His initial complaint asserted five federal claims and two state-law claims, including claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as claims for attempted civil extortion and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On February 27, 2020, the court dismissed Wilson’s federal claims, gave him limited permission to amend to correct identified deficiencies, and barred him from adding new claims or defendants without court permission. Wilson later filed a request to add new claims and defendants, attaching a proposed First Amended Complaint. The proposed complaint repeated his existing claims and added nine new claims and 28 new defendants.
Court’s analysis
The court treated Wilson’s request as a motion for permission to file an amended complaint containing claims and parties beyond those covered by the earlier permission to amend. Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts generally should allow amendment when justice requires it. The court therefore granted the motion and deemed the proposed First Amended Complaint filed.
Because Wilson was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to dismiss the complaint if it failed to state a legally sufficient claim or was frivolous or malicious. Applying that screening requirement, the court found that every claim in the First Amended Complaint was already asserted in a separate action pending before the same court, No. 3:20-cv-3668-MMC. The court relied on authority recognizing a court’s discretion to dismiss a filing that merely repeats claims pending or previously litigated.
Disposition
Judge Maxine Chesney granted Wilson’s motion to amend, deemed the proposed First Amended Complaint filed, and dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice to Wilson pursuing those claims in the separate pending action, No. 3:20-cv-3668-MMC.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.