Harris v. Broomfield
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-00283
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Maurice Lydell Harris v. Cleric Muhammad, Judge Gilliam denied Harris’s request to add Chaplain Richey, without prejudice to seeking leave properly.
Maurice Lydell Harris was affected because his request to add Chaplain Charles Richey as a defendant was denied, although he may seek permission to file a second amended complaint. The existing defendants and proposed defendant Richey were also implicated by the amendment procedure.
What happened
Maurice Lydell Harris, an incarcerated plaintiff at San Quentin State Prison representing himself, sued prison religious officials under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found that his complaint stated valid claims involving religious exercise, prison conditions, equal treatment, and religious diets.
Harris asked to add Chaplain Charles Richey as a defendant. He said he had recently determined that Richey was responsible for requiring the other defendants to issue the religious-diet violations at issue.
The court denied the request because a complaint cannot be amended piecemeal through letters or motions. The denial was without prejudice to filing a motion for permission to submit a second amended complaint with the proposed complaint attached. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also said that the new complaint must include all defendants and claims Harris wants to pursue and cannot simply refer back to earlier complaints.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Broomfield · No. 4:21-cv-00283
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
Maurice Lydell Harris, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had screened his operative complaint and found that it stated claims against San Quentin Muslim cleric Muhammad (K. Fasish) and Christian chaplain Jackson under the First Amendment’s free-exercise clause, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Harris asked to add Chaplain Charles Richey as a defendant. The opinion identifies Richey as the community resources manager of the Religious Programs Oversight Unit, Division of Adult Institutions. Harris asserted that he had recently determined Richey was responsible for requiring the named defendants to issue the religious-diet violations that allegedly violated his civil rights.
Ruling
The court denied Harris’s request to add Richey because a plaintiff may not amend a complaint piecemeal by filing letters or motions that add defendants or claims. The court stated that the proper procedure is to seek leave, or permission, to file an amended complaint.
The denial was without prejudice to Harris filing a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and attaching a proposed second amended complaint. The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint. It instructed that the proposed second amended complaint should include every defendant Harris wishes to sue and every claim he wishes to bring, including defendants already served and claims previously found legally sufficient. Harris may not incorporate the earlier complaints by reference, and any request for leave to amend must include the proposed amended complaint as required by the Northern District of California’s local rules.
The court terminated the motion identified as Docket No. 21. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.