Solorio v. Ducart
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-07708
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Solorio v. Ducart, Judge Rogers denied Solorio’s motion to reopen without prejudice, allowing refiling only with a proposed complaint addressing Claim 2.
Adrian Solorio’s case remains closed. He may seek to reopen it by filing a renewed motion together with a proposed fourth amended complaint addressing only Claim 2.
What happened
Solorio v. Ducart involved a closed civil-rights case brought by Adrian Solorio, who represented himself while incarcerated. The court had previously required him to pursue only Claim 2 in this case.
Solorio asked the court to alter or amend the judgment, explaining that the pandemic and lack of requested legal copies contributed to his failure to follow the court’s instructions. He did not include the proposed fourth amended complaint that the court had required with any request to reopen.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the motion to reopen without prejudice to refiling. The case will remain closed unless Solorio files both a renewed motion and a proposed fourth amended complaint addressing only Claim 2.
The detailed version
- Solorio v. Ducart · No. 4:18-cv-07708
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 17, 2021
Background
Adrian Solorio filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. He represented himself. The court had previously given him opportunities to amend his complaint, but his second amended complaint asserted seven claims against about twenty defendants without clearly showing that the claims involved the same transactions or common legal or factual questions, as required for joining defendants in one case.
In a July 24, 2020 order, the court dismissed Claim 1, concerning an alleged random and unauthorized deprivation of property, without leave to amend because it did not state a claim under § 1983. The court also dismissed Claim 2, concerning an alleged deprivation of legal materials on October 4, 2016, but allowed Solorio to amend that claim. The court dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice to bringing them in separate actions and instructed Solorio that any third amended complaint had to address only Claim 2.
Solorio filed two documents labeled as third amended complaints. The court found that neither amended Claim 2; instead, they raised new claims concerning medical incidents and denial of access to religion. On January 12, 2021, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to follow its July 24 order and failure to prosecute. The court stated that Solorio could move to reopen, but required any such motion to include a proposed fourth amended complaint addressing only the deficiencies in Claim 2.
Motion and ruling
Solorio later filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.” Because the January 12 order allowed him to seek reopening, the court treated the filing as a motion to reopen. Solorio said that the pandemic and the denial of requested legal copies contributed to his failure to comply with the July 24 deadline.
The court denied the motion to reopen without prejudice to refiling because Solorio had not attached the required proposed fourth amended complaint. The court directed that any renewed motion to reopen must include that proposed complaint and must address only Claim 2. The action remains closed unless both documents are filed. The order terminated Docket No. 25.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.