Delmonico v. Bonta
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-02009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Delmonico v. Bonta, Judge Gilliam vacated the dismissal and judgment, reopened the action, and denied as moot a request to reinstate an earlier order.
Michael John Delmonico’s case was reopened after the court vacated its dismissal and judgment; Rob Bonta remained the respondent identified as Delmonico’s current custodian.
What happened
In Delmonico v. Bonta, the court had dismissed Michael John Delmonico’s action without prejudice after he did not file an amended petition as required, and it entered judgment for Rob Bonta. Delmonico then filed an amended petition.
Because the amended petition had been filed, the court vacated the dismissal and related judgment and reopened the action. It said the amended petition would be screened in a separate order.
Judge Gilliam denied as moot Delmonico’s request to reinstate the earlier order because the court had already reopened the case. The order also directed the clerk to substitute Rob Bonta for the previously named respondent because Bonta was identified as Delmonico’s current custodian.
The detailed version
- Delmonico v. Bonta · No. 4:21-cv-02009
- Haywood Gilliam
- June 10, 2021
Background
The court previously dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to file an amended petition required by its March 31, 2021 order. It also entered judgment in favor of Rob Bonta. The opinion says this dismissal occurred on May 19, 2021, but later refers to a May 9, 2021 dismissal order.
Michael John Delmonico filed an amended petition on May 24, 2021. In light of that filing, the court directed the clerk to vacate the dismissal order and related judgment and to reopen the action.
Request to Reinstate Earlier Order
Delmonico filed a request concerning the March 31, 2021 order. The court construed that filing as a request to reopen the case. Because the court had already ordered the action reopened, it denied the request as moot. “Moot” means that the requested relief was no longer necessary because the issue had already been resolved.
Ruling
The court vacated the dismissal and related judgment, reopened the action, and denied as moot the request to reinstate the March 31 order. It stated that it would screen the amended petition in a separate order. The court also directed substitution of Rob Bonta, identified as the petitioner’s current custodian, for the previously named respondent.
Effect
This order did not decide the merits of the amended petition. It restored the case for further proceedings and left screening of the amended petition for a later order. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.