Hawthorne v. Kernan
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-04960
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Hawthorne v. Yanez, Judge Gilliam denied amendment relief without prejudice and partly granted deadline extensions for opposition briefs.
Carlos A. Hawthorne and the defendants in his civil-rights action, including Swensen, Czakjowski, Davis, Fonesca, Hagens, Thomas, and Yanez.
What happened
In Carlos A. Hawthorne v. A Yanez, et al., a prisoner representing himself asked for 120 more days to file a second amended complaint and respond to pending motions. He cited medical, learning, mobility, hearing, and communication limitations.
The court denied his fourth request to extend the time for filing a second amended complaint, but allowed him to file a new motion seeking permission to amend. That motion must explain any delay or unfair harm to defendants and include the proposed complaint.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted in part and denied in part the request for more time to oppose the pending motions, setting February 18, 2022, as the deadline for both oppositions.
The detailed version
- Hawthorne v. Kernan · No. 4:17-cv-04960
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 20, 2021
Background
Carlos A. Hawthorne, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer against prison officials. The court had previously screened his amended complaint, identified claims that could proceed, dismissed other claims with prejudice, and allowed him to amend two claims. It also instructed him not to add new, unrelated claims. The court had already granted three extensions, through May 21, 2021, to file a second amended complaint, but Hawthorne did not file one by that date.
Hawthorne requested a fourth 120-day extension, through April 21, 2022, to file a second amended complaint and oppose a pending motion to dismiss and a pending summary-judgment motion. He said he needed more time because he was proceeding without a lawyer and had medical, learning, mobility, hearing, communication, and mental-health-related limitations.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied the requested extension for filing a second amended complaint. It explained that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would cause undue prejudice, result from bad faith, be futile, or cause undue delay. Hawthorne had known about deficiencies in his amended complaint for more than a year, had not explained why he needed a year and a half to prepare the proposed amendment, and the defendants had already filed dispositive motions based on the amended complaint.
The denial was without prejudice. Hawthorne may file a renewed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, but that motion must address whether the amendment would cause undue prejudice or undue delay, explain why he could not file it earlier, and include the proposed second amended complaint. The court stated that failure to address those issues or attach the proposed complaint would result in summary denial of a renewed motion.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Hawthorne’s request for an extension of time to oppose the pending motions. It extended the deadline to February 18, 2022, for Hawthorne to oppose defendant Swensen’s motion to dismiss and defendants Czakjowski, Davis, Fonesca, Hagens, Thomas, and Yanez’s motion for summary judgment. Replies were due 14 days after the relevant opposition was filed. The motions would be submitted when the reply deadlines arrived, and no hearing would be held. The order terminated Docket No. 69.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.