Hawthorne v. Kernan

Background

Carlos A. Hawthorne, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for constitutional violations by state officials. The court had screened his amended complaint and found some claims legally sufficient against prison officials Fonseca, Yanez, Czajkowski, Davis, Deal, Hagens, Swensen, and Thomas. The court had dismissed other claims with prejudice and had allowed Hawthorne to amend two claims: one involving an alleged false accusation by Bensimon, and another alleging that Stragalinos helped conceal Hawthorne’s property and thereby interfered with his access to the courts.

The court had already granted two extensions, giving Hawthorne a deadline of May 21, 2021, after a total of five additional months. Hawthorne then requested another 60 days and permission to add four claims to what he described as a lengthy draft complaint.

Requests for more time and additional claims

The court denied Hawthorne’s request to expand the case by adding four claims. It said he had not identified what those claims would allege or shown good cause to expand the case’s scope.

The court also denied his request for another two months. It found that he had not shown good cause and that the existing deadline had given him six months to prepare the second amended complaint and address the problems identified in the two claims he was allowed to amend.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

The court reminded Hawthorne that Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement” showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court explained that this requirement applies even when a person is representing himself and that failure to comply with Rule 8 can support dismissal regardless of whether the claims have merit. The second amended complaint therefore had to comply with Rule 8.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the request for an additional 60 days and leave to add four claims. He ordered Hawthorne to file a second amended complaint by May 21, 2021, and required it to comply with Rule 8. The order stated that if Hawthorne failed to meet that deadline, the first amended complaint would remain the operative complaint and the action would proceed on the claims found legally sufficient in the earlier screening order. The order terminated ECF No. 41.