Lemelle v. Rakitan
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-09463
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lemelle v. Rakitan, Judge Freeman dismissed Michael S. Lemelle’s civil-rights action without prejudice after he failed to amend his complaint.
Michael S. Lemelle’s civil-rights action was dismissed without prejudice; the court also terminated all pending motions and closed the file.
What happened
In Lemelle v. Rakitan, Michael S. Lemelle, representing himself, sued officers at Salinas Valley State Prison under a federal civil-rights law. A magistrate judge previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to correct its problems by filing an amended complaint.
The court ordered Lemelle to file the amended complaint within 28 days and warned that failing to respond would lead to dismissal without further notice. The deadline passed without an amended complaint.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to file an amended complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file.
The detailed version
- Lemelle v. Rakitan · No. 5:21-cv-09463
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
Michael S. Lemelle, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at Salinas Valley State Prison. The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, with Lemelle’s consent.
On February 22, 2022, Magistrate Judge Kim dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, meaning Lemelle was allowed to correct identified deficiencies and file an amended complaint. The order gave him 28 days to respond and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal without further notice. Lemelle did not file an amended complaint within the time provided. The case was reassigned to Judge Freeman on March 24, 2022.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to file an amended complaint. The order also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the file.
Effect
The opinion states that the dismissal was without prejudice. It does not describe any ruling on the underlying civil-rights allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.