Santiago v. Brennan
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-01571
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Santiago v. Brennan, Judge Rogers extended Santiago’s amendment deadline, denied requests for affidavits and counsel without prejudice, and granted voluntary dismissal of his First Amendment claim.
Willie Romero Santiago’s case: he received more time to amend his complaint, could not yet present affidavits to jurors, was denied appointed counsel without prejudice, and voluntarily dismissed any First Amendment claim. The defendant received 14 days to respond after the amended complaint is filed.
What happened
In Santiago v. Brennan, Willie Romero Santiago asked for more time to file an amended complaint and made several other requests. The court granted him until September 2, 2020, to file it.
The court denied without prejudice his request to have jurors review affidavits and his renewed request for appointed counsel. It granted his request to voluntarily dismiss any First Amendment claim and directed him to leave that claim out of his amended complaint.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order on August 26, 2020. The order also says that the caption names Megan J. Brennan as the defendant, while another part of the text refers to Louis DeJoy.
The detailed version
- Santiago v. Brennan · No. 4:20-cv-01571
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 26, 2020
Background
Willie Romero Santiago filed several motions while seeking to file a first amended complaint. The caption identifies Megan J. Brennan, the United States Postmaster General, as the defendant. The opinion’s discussion also refers to a response filed by Louis DeJoy and to claims against the U.S. Postal Service.
Rulings
The court ruled on three docket entries:
- Docket No. 32: The court granted Santiago’s request for an extension of time to file a first amended complaint. It ordered him to file the complaint by September 2, 2020, and stated that the defendant would have 14 days after that to respond. - The court denied without prejudice Santiago’s request to direct members of the jury to review affidavits. The court explained that Santiago first had to state his claims in a complaint and that the defendant had to have an opportunity to respond. The court said that, if the case survived later motions and reached a jury trial, Santiago could request that affidavits and other evidence be presented at a pretrial conference. - Docket No. 34: Construing the motion as a renewed request for appointed counsel, the court denied without prejudice the request. It explained that civil litigants generally do not have a constitutional right to counsel unless exceptional circumstances exist. The court stated that it could not evaluate exceptional circumstances before Santiago explained the nature of his claims in an amended complaint. It left open the possibility of reconsidering counsel later, after the amended complaint and the defendant’s response. - Docket No. 35: The court construed the motion as a request for voluntary dismissal of any First Amendment claim against the defendants and granted it. Santiago was directed to delete that claim from any first amended complaint.
The order states that these rulings terminated Docket Nos. 32, 34, and 35. It does not decide the merits of Santiago’s remaining claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses filing deadlines, evidence before trial, appointment of counsel, and voluntary dismissal of a claim without deciding the underlying merits of the remaining case.
Judge
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order on August 26, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.