Maggay v. Micke
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-04994
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Maggay v. Micke, Judge Freeman granted leave to file a second amended complaint and stayed briefing on Officer Micke’s motion.
Roderick Maggay, Officer Micke, Defendant Perez, the newly identified proposed defendants, and the case’s briefing schedule.
What happened
In Maggay v. Micke, Roderick Maggay, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued several jail officers under a federal civil-rights law. The court had found claims against Officer Micke and Officer Perry sufficient to continue, but only Micke had appeared.
Maggay filed a motion asking the court to clarify his amended complaint. The court treated it as a request to amend, allowed a second amended complaint, and instructed Maggay to identify Perez as the appropriate defendant, describe the actions of newly named defendants, and include facts supporting each person’s liability. The newly identified defendants included Nurse R. Hallera, Officer Han, Officer Cummings, Officer Watson, Sgt. Smitherman, Tech E. Frogier, and Tech J. Newkirk.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman gave Maggay 28 days to file the second amended complaint and stayed the deadline for Officer Micke’s potentially case-ending motion. The court said that claims or defendants omitted from the new complaint would no longer be part of the case, and that failing to respond would leave the action proceeding on the previously recognized claims.
The detailed version
- Maggay v. Micke · No. 5:21-cv-04994
- Beth Freeman
- July 14, 2022
Background
Roderick Maggay, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several officers at the Santa Rita County Jail. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend it. After Maggay filed an amended complaint, the court found that it stated legally sufficient claims against Defendants Micke and Perry. The court ordered service and directed the defendants to file a potentially case-ending motion or a notice concerning such a motion. At the time of this order, Officer Micke had appeared, while Defendant Perry had not.
Motion and court’s reasoning
Maggay filed a “motion of clarification” concerning the allegations in his amended complaint. The court construed that filing as a request for permission to amend and found good cause to grant it. The court directed Maggay to file a second amended complaint identifying Defendant Perez as the appropriate party and including the appropriate allegations.
The court also addressed additional people Maggay identified in the motion: Nurse R. Hallera, Officer Han, Officer Cummings, Officer Watson, Sgt. Smitherman, Tech E. Frogier, and Tech J. Newkirk. The court explained that merely naming people was not enough. Maggay was required to describe each person’s actions connected to the incident and include enough factual allegations to show that each could be liable under § 1983. The court stated that § 1983 liability requires a defendant’s actions to actually and proximately cause the deprivation of a federally protected right, including through an affirmative act, participation in another person’s affirmative act, or failure to perform a legally required act.
Order
The court granted Maggay leave to file a second amended complaint within 28 days after the order was filed. The new complaint had to use the caption and civil case number specified in the order and include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that the second amended complaint would replace the original and amended complaints. Claims not included in it would no longer be claims, and defendants not named in it would no longer be defendants.
The court further ordered that, if Maggay failed to respond as directed and within the time allowed, the case would proceed based on the legally sufficient claims identified in the amended complaint. In light of the amendment, the court stayed the deadline for Officer Micke’s potentially case-ending motion and said it would set a new briefing schedule as appropriate. The order terminated Docket No. 24.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.