Malloy v. Regents of the University of California

Background

Stephen Grove Malloy, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an employment-discrimination action against more than 50 defendants in Case No. 19-cv-07995, referred to as Malloy I. The court granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Malloy later filed a seemingly identical action in state court; defendants removed that action to federal court, where it became Case No. 20-cv-07312, referred to as Malloy II.

On August 18, 2021, the court dismissed Malloy I as duplicative and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in Malloy II. The court allowed Malloy to file an amended complaint within 30 days. After Malloy submitted a medical provider’s letter stating that his medical conditions and treatment might interfere with litigation, the court extended the deadline to March 17, 2022. Malloy did not file an amended complaint by that date. The court later granted another extension through August 1, 2022, while warning that no further extensions would be granted absent exigent and unforeseen circumstances and that failure to file could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Rulings

The court denied Malloy’s motions to reproduce the dockets in Malloy I and Malloy II at reduced cost or no cost. It held that permission to proceed without paying filing fees did not require the government to pay litigation costs. It also found that Malloy had not shown a need for paper copies or for reproducing the entire dockets, particularly because he received electronic copies and Malloy I was closed.

The court denied Malloy’s further request to extend the amended-complaint deadline through August 1, 2022. The court found that Malloy provided no evidence that the circumstances supporting the earlier extensions were still ongoing and that his medical provider’s letter supported an extension only through March 2022. The court also stated that courts are not responsible for obtaining additional medical evidence outside the record and that indefinite extensions would prevent the action from progressing.

Although it denied the further extension, the court gave Malloy a brief, final opportunity to file a first amended complaint in Malloy II by September 23, 2022. The court stated that, if he failed to do so, the action would be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b), without further notice. The order also allowed Malloy to file by that date a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), or a stipulation for dismissal if all appearing defendants agreed. The court warned that any later request for an extension or other related relief would not suspend the deadline and could be denied summarily.

The court denied Malloy’s motions for permission to file motions for reconsideration in both actions. It explained that Malloy I was on appeal and that requests concerning deadlines imposed by the Court of Appeals had to be made there. As to Malloy II, the court concluded that the issues Malloy wanted reconsidered were resolved by the present order and therefore were not properly the subject of a reconsideration motion. The court also denied the related requests for oversized briefs and oral argument.

Additional explanation and effect

The court explained that the earlier screening of Malloy’s pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 had occurred without briefing from defendants. Therefore, defendants could still challenge the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. 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 on the motions to dismiss and remand.

The order did not decide whether Malloy’s underlying employment-discrimination claims were legally valid. It denied the pending administrative and extension motions and set a final deadline for an amended complaint. Judge Saundra B. Armstrong is identified in the signature block, which states that Richard Seeborg signed for her.