Ellawendy v. Benal
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-05475
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Ellawendy v. Benal: Judge Alsup reopened the case and allowed an amended damages complaint against jail officials under stated conditions.
Abel Fatah Ellawendy and the defendants Steve Benal, Commander Bass, and Commander Bier; the order also directs the clerk to reopen the case.
What happened
In Abel Fatah Ellawendy v. Steve Benal, Commander Bass, and Commander Bier, Abel Fatah Ellawendy, representing himself, sued officials at the Monterey County Jail under a federal civil-rights law. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the earlier deficiencies.
The court granted Ellawendy permission to file an amended complaint asserting only damages claims against the defendants personally, and the clerk was ordered to reopen the case. Ellawendy had 28 days to file the amended complaint, which had to include all claims he wished to pursue and could not refer back to the original complaint.
Judge William Alsup warned that failing to amend as required could result in dismissal of the case and that failing to follow court orders or keep the court informed of address changes could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the merits of Ellawendy’s claims.
The detailed version
- Ellawendy v. Benal · No. 3:19-cv-05475
- William Alsup
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Abel Fatah Ellawendy, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Steve Benal, Commander Bass, and Commander Bier. The opinion identifies the defendants as officials at the Monterey County Jail, where Ellawendy was formerly incarcerated. The excerpt does not state the substance of the claims or identify the deficiencies referenced in the order.
What the Court Ordered
Pursuant to a mandate from the United States Court of Appeals, the court granted Ellawendy leave to file an amended complaint. The amended pleading may assert only claims for damages against the defendants in their personal capacities.
Ellawendy was required to file the amended complaint within 28 days after the order was filed. It had to use the caption in the order, include the civil case number C 19-5475 WHA (PR), and state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, it had to include every claim Ellawendy wished to present; he could not incorporate the original complaint by reference.
The court stated that failure to amend within the deadline and in accordance with the order would result in dismissal of the case. It also stated that Ellawendy was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders. Failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk was ordered to reopen the case.
Disposition and Effect
Judge William Alsup granted leave to file an amended complaint and ordered the case reopened. This order addressed the next procedural steps and did not decide whether Ellawendy’s underlying claims were legally valid or supported by the facts.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.