Flores v. Murphy
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-07851
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Flores v. Murphy, Judge Demarch granted Flores more time to file an amended civil-rights complaint after screening found his original claims inadequate.
Davin Willie Flores, who received additional time to amend his complaint; the named defendants remain subject to the case only as addressed in any timely amended complaint.
What happened
In Flores v. Murphy, Davin Willie Flores, a state prisoner representing himself, sued several defendants over actions at the Martinez Detention Facility. The court had screened his original complaint and found that it did not state a claim against any named defendant.
Flores asked for more time to file an amended complaint because he did not receive the court’s screening order until March 14, 2022. The court found good cause and extended the deadline from March 25 to April 22, 2022.
Judge Virginia K. Demarch granted the extension but did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims. The order warned that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint and that failing to file one, or failing to correct the identified problems, could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to state a legally valid claim.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Murphy · No. 5:21-cv-07851
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 22, 2022
Background
Davin Willie Flores, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action against “Classification Sergeant” E. Murphy, “Classification” Deputy E. Arteaga, and “West County and Martinez Detention facility medical staff.” The complaint concerned actions while Flores was housed at the Martinez Detention Facility.
On February 24, 2022, the court screened the complaint and found that it failed to state a claim against all named defendants. The court allowed Flores to file an amended complaint addressing the problems identified in the screening order, with an original deadline of March 25, 2022.
Motion and ruling
Flores requested an extension because he did not receive the screening order until March 14, 2022. The court found good cause and granted his request for an extension of time.
Flores may file an amended complaint by April 22, 2022. The order requires the amended filing to use the caption and civil case number listed in the order and to include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page.
Effect of the order
The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint. Claims omitted from the amended complaint will no longer be claims, and defendants not named in it will no longer be defendants. The court also warned that if Flores does not file an amended complaint on time, or if the amended complaint does not correct all identified defects, the court may reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a legally cognizable claim.
The order granted additional filing time; it did not decide whether Flores’s underlying civil-rights claims have merit. Judge Virginia K. Demarch signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.