Headen v. Scott

Background

Brian Christopher Headen filed the complaint in this civil-rights action on February 24, 2022. On the same day, he filed a similar complaint against San Mateo County in a separate case. That separate case was later dismissed after Headen said he had not intended to file a second case. He then objected to the closing of that case and stated that he had intended to combine it with this action. Magistrate Judge Illman denied his request to reopen the separate case because Headen could amend the complaint in this action to state all of his claims.

Order

The court concluded that Headen appeared likely to amend his complaint. It therefore found that reviewing the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides for screening of certain civil-rights complaints filed by prisoners, would be premature. The court ordered Headen to file an amended complaint no later than September 2, 2022. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and civil case number in the order, say “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and provide a complete statement of his claims.

Effect of Not Amending

The court stated that any amended complaint had to include both the claims originally presented in this action and the claims originally presented in the separate action against San Mateo County. If Headen did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the court would treat the claims from the San Mateo County action as waived, and this case would proceed only on the claims originally filed here. Judge Edward M. Chen granted Headen time to amend; the order did not decide the underlying claims.