Bradford v. Contra Costa County Detention Facilities
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-06433
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bradford v. Contra Costa County Detention Facilities, Judge Freeman dismissed Bradford’s complaint with leave to amend and extended time for a complete fee-waiver application.
Donald Bradford, whose complaint and application to proceed without paying filing fees were incomplete; the case against Contra Costa County Detention Facilities was allowed to continue only if he submitted the required amended filings.
What happened
Donald Bradford filed a document titled “Civil Suit” seeking to sue Contra Costa County Detention Facilities without a lawyer. The clerk treated it as an attempt to bring a civil-rights case under a federal law known as Section 1983 and sent Bradford a complaint form and instructions for requesting permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that Bradford’s complaint was only partly completed and unsigned. His fee-waiver application was also incomplete because the required prison-account certificate was not properly completed and signed, and he did not provide a six-month trust-account statement.
In Bradford v. Contra Costa County Detention Facilities, Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and gave Bradford 28 days to file a complete, signed amended complaint and the required financial documents. The order states that failure to comply will result in dismissal with prejudice, without further notice.
The detailed version
- Bradford v. Contra Costa County Detention Facilities · No. 5:21-cv-06433
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 21, 2021
Background
Donald Bradford, who was detained at the West County Detention Facility in Richmond, California, filed a document titled “Civil Suit” in which he requested to sue Contra Costa County Detention Facilities and asked for a pro se packet. The clerk treated the filing as an attempted civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims against state or local actors. The clerk sent Bradford a complaint form and notice explaining that he needed to submit a complete application to proceed without paying filing fees.
Bradford later submitted a complaint in which only the first page was partly filled out, and he did not sign it. His application to proceed without paying filing fees was also incomplete. The required certificate concerning funds in his prisoner account had not been completed and signed by an authorized officer, and he did not provide a six-month statement of his trust account.
Court’s Action
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It gave Bradford 28 days from the filing date of the order to file an amended complaint on the court form, provide all required information, and sign the complaint. The amended complaint had to use the caption and case number in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page.
The court also extended the time for Bradford to submit a complete application to proceed without paying filing fees. Within the same 28-day period, he had to file a completed and properly signed certificate concerning funds in his prisoner account, together with a copy of his prisoner trust-account statement.
Effect of the Order
The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint. Claims or defendants omitted from the amended complaint would no longer be part of the case. The court warned that failing to file the amended complaint on time would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The matter would also be dismissed if Bradford failed to file the supporting documents for his fee-waiver application within the required period. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.