Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 3, 2020

Robertson v. Doe

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:20-cv-02523
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil RightsSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Robertson v. Doe, Judge Freeman granted leave to amend the complaint, replacing Doe defendants with five named defendants while postponing initial review.

Who this affects

Reginald Robertson and the defendants in his case: the four terminated Doe or ASCO-Technician defendants and the five defendants added to the amended complaint.

What happened

In Robertson v. Doe, Reginald Robertson, a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. He asked to amend his complaint to identify defendants previously listed as Doe defendants.

The court allowed the amendment under the federal rule permitting one amendment without permission. The amended complaint now replaces the original complaint and is the operative complaint in the case.

Judge Freeman directed the clerk to remove the Doe defendants and ASCO-Technician and add D. Bussell, J. Alvarez, M. Ella, G. Harris, and C. Wong. The court said it would review the amended complaint separately and terminated the motions seeking amendment.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Robertson v. Doe · No. 5:20-cv-02523
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Sept. 3, 2020

Background

Reginald Robertson, identified as a state prisoner at the Santa Rita Jail, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against personnel at the jail. He moved for permission to file an amended complaint and supplied names for defendants who had originally been identified only as Doe defendants. His request to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be addressed in a separate order.

Ruling

The court granted leave to file the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), which allows a plaintiff to amend once without obtaining the court's permission. The amended complaint filed at Docket No. 11 supersedes the original complaint and is now the operative complaint. Claims and defendants omitted from the amended complaint are no longer part of the case.

The clerk was directed to terminate defendants identified as “1 Doe,” “2 Doe,” “3 Doe,” and “ASCO-Technician,” and to add D. Bussell, J. Alvarez, M. Ella, G. Harris, and C. Wong as defendants. The court stated that it would conduct an initial review of the amended complaint in a separate order. The order terminated Docket Nos. 10 and 11. The opinion did not decide the merits of Robertson's claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.