Malloy v. City of San Francisco

Background

The order addressed two related cases: No. 20-cv-07312, involving the City and County of San Francisco and other defendants, and No. 19-cv-07995, involving the Regents of the University of California and other defendants. Stephen Grove Malloy represented himself. He had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in the earlier case, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis.

An earlier order dismissed the first case as duplicative and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the second case. Malloy was directed to file an amended complaint. The court had previously extended that deadline through March 17, 2022, and later through August 1, 2022, while warning that further extensions would not be granted absent truly exigent and unforeseen circumstances. Malloy did not file an amended complaint and instead sought another extension based on medical circumstances.

Rulings

The court denied Malloy’s motions requesting reproduction of the complete dockets in both cases at reduced cost or no cost, including a free flash drive. The court explained that the fee-waiver statute permits waiver of filing and service fees but does not authorize payment of litigation costs. It also found that Malloy, as an electronic filer, already received PDF copies of filings and had not shown a need for paper copies of the entire dockets.

The court denied Malloy’s motion for another medical extension. It found that he provided no evidence that the circumstances supporting the earlier extensions continued and that his medical provider’s letter supported an extension only through March 2022. The court also stated that a party has a general duty to prosecute a lawsuit and that continuing extensions would effectively create an indefinite stay.

The court nevertheless gave Malloy a brief, final opportunity to file a first amended complaint by September 23, 2022. It stated that if he did not do so, the action would be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order also allowed Malloy to file by that date either a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice or, if all appearing defendants agreed, a stipulation for voluntary dismissal.

The court denied Malloy’s motions for permission to file motions for reconsideration in both cases. It explained that the first case was on appeal and that requests concerning deadlines imposed by the court of appeals had to be directed there. As to the second case, the court concluded that Malloy’s reconsideration request concerned the same extension issue resolved by this order. The court therefore also denied related motions to exceed page limits and for oral argument.

Additional explanation and disposition

The court explained that an earlier screening recommendation finding some claims sufficient did not prevent the defendants from later challenging those claims through a motion to dismiss. Screening occurs before defendants provide briefing, and the defendants’ later motion raised issues not considered during screening, including whether a Title VII claim was untimely. The court stated that Malloy could not rely on the claims as originally pleaded and that any amended complaint had to address the deficiencies identified in the earlier order.

The order concluded that Malloy’s motions for docket reproduction were denied; his motion for a further medical extension was denied, subject to the final September 23 filing opportunity; and his motions for leave to seek reconsideration, exceed page limits, and obtain oral argument were denied.