Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2022

Flournoy v. Contra Costa County

Judge
Charles Breyer
Docket
3:21-cv-07480
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Flournoy v. Contra Costa County, Judge Breyer reopened the case and extended James Henry Flournoy’s deadline to amend his complaint.

Who this affects

James Henry Flournoy and the administration of his case; the order permits him to file a First Amended Complaint by May 27, 2022.

What happened

In Flournoy v. Contra Costa County, the court had dismissed James Henry Flournoy’s complaint after screening it, allowing him to amend one claim and file separate cases for others. The court’s orders were returned as undeliverable, and Flournoy later updated his address and asked to reopen the case and extend his deadline.

The court granted the requests. It allowed Flournoy to file a First Amended Complaint by May 27, 2022, limited to 25 pages and following the court’s instructions. The court warned that failing to file a proper amended complaint would result in dismissal.

Judge Breyer ordered the clerk to reopen the case, send Flournoy copies of the earlier orders and this order, and terminate the request listed as docket item 11.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Flournoy v. Contra Costa County · No. 3:21-cv-07480
Judge
Charles Breyer
Date
May 2, 2022

Background

On November 30, 2021, the court screened James Henry Flournoy’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend Flournoy’s medical malpractice and negligence claim against several Contra Costa County Jail medical staff members. It dismissed his other claims without prejudice to filing them in separate actions.

The court instructed Flournoy that an amended complaint had to provide specific dates and facts showing how each named medical defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, if possible. The court stated that negligence or gross negligence alone would not be enough. It warned that failing to file a proper amended complaint within 28 days would result in dismissal.

On January 11, 2022, after more than 40 days had passed without an amended complaint or a request for more time, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. The earlier orders were returned as undeliverable. Flournoy later filed a notice changing his address and requested that the case be reopened and that he receive more time to respond.

Ruling

The court granted Flournoy’s request to reopen the case and for an extension of time. It allowed him to file a First Amended Complaint by May 27, 2022. The amended complaint had to be simple and concise, no longer than 25 pages, use the caption and civil case number in the order, and include the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page.

The court explained that the First Amended Complaint would replace the original complaint and all earlier amendments and pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in it would not be considered. The court again warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal.

Instructions to the Clerk

Judge Charles R. Breyer instructed the clerk to reopen the case, send Flournoy copies of the November 30, 2021 and January 11, 2022 orders and this order, and terminate the request listed as docket item 11.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.