Moreno v. Brettkelly
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-02082
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Moreno v. Perkins Will: Judge Orrick dismissed Moreno’s remaining civil-rights claim with prejudice and denied three other motions.
Jose Rigoberto Moreno’s case was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. Perkins Will, Inc., and the other defendants were no longer required to defend the dismissed claims in this action. Moreno’s three additional motions were denied.
What happened
In Jose Rigoberto Moreno v. Perkins Will, Inc., et al., the court had previously dismissed Moreno’s claims, leaving him an opportunity to amend a possible excessive-force claim under a federal civil-rights law.
Moreno submitted a proposed amended complaint, but it focused on previously dismissed benefits, employment, and housing claims rather than explaining the alleged excessive-force incident or each defendant’s actions. The court found that the proposed complaint did not adequately describe a civil-rights claim and dismissed the case in its entirety with prejudice.
Judge William H. Orrick also denied Moreno’s motions concerning electronic filing, extending service, and entering default and judgment. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Moreno v. Brettkelly · No. 3:20-cv-02082
- William Orrick
- Jan. 7, 2021
Background
Jose Rigoberto Moreno was proceeding without a lawyer. On July 16, 2020, the court found that his amended complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and dismissed it. The court nevertheless dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to a possible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, based on alleged excessive force. Moreno was given until August 17, 2020, to file another amended complaint.
After about four months without a response, the court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court dismissed Moreno’s other claims with prejudice but left the § 1983 claim unresolved. It ordered Moreno to explain why that claim should not also be dismissed with prejudice by seeking permission to file an amended complaint containing one § 1983 claim and attaching the proposed complaint.
The proposed amended complaint
Moreno filed a motion for permission to amend and a proposed amended complaint on December 10, 2020. The court stated that, instead of focusing on the alleged excessive-force claim, Moreno repeated arguments that his claims concerning benefits, employment, and housing should continue. The court had already dismissed those claims with prejudice and found no reason to change that decision.
The court also found that the proposed amended complaint failed to state a plausible § 1983 claim. It did not describe the incident that allegedly involved excessive force or explain which defendant took which action. The court held that these omissions failed to meet the basic notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Ruling
After reviewing Moreno’s filings and considering the factors described in the cited precedent, Judge William H. Orrick dismissed Moreno’s § 1983 claim with prejudice. The court therefore dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.
Because the case was dismissed in its entirety, the court denied Moreno’s motions for electronic case filing, for leave to extend service to prosecute, and for entry of default and judgment. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for the motion for permission to amend beyond dismissing the remaining § 1983 claim with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.