Redd v. Unknown

Background

Stephen M. Redd, who is incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. On April 19, 2022, the court dismissed his complaint with permission to amend. The court identified several problems, including failure to connect a named defendant to an alleged constitutional violation, failure to provide the short and plain statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and failure to comply with Rule 20.

Requests Before the Court

Redd asked for an extension of time to file his amended complaint. He also asked to add two requests for relief and a California legal authority to that amended complaint.

Ruling

The court granted the extension of time retroactively, using the term “nunc pro tunc,” and deemed the amended complaint docketed on May 19, 2022, timely filed. The court denied Redd’s request to add material to that complaint. It explained that piecemeal amendments are disfavored and that the court would not assemble claims, defendants, and requested relief from different pleadings.

The court stated that an amended complaint replaces earlier complaints. If Redd chose to file a second amended complaint, he had to include all claims, defendants, requested relief, and legal authority he wished to present, including material from earlier complaints; he could not incorporate earlier complaints by reference. The court gave him 28 days from the date of the order to file it. If he did not, the May 19 amended complaint would remain the operative complaint. The court deferred screening the amended complaint until the filing deadline passed. The order terminated docket entries 38 and 40 and did not decide the merits of Redd’s claims.