Headen v. Scott
- Edward Chen
- 3:22-cv-01146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Headen v. Scott, Judge Chen granted Headen more time to amend his civil-rights complaint but denied his request for appointed counsel.
Brian Christopher Headen, whose deadline to amend his complaint was extended but whose request for appointed counsel was denied.
What happened
In Headen v. Scott, Brian Christopher Headen asked for more time to amend his civil-rights complaint and asked the court to appoint a lawyer for him. He had submitted hundreds of pages of additions after the court gave him time to amend.
The court granted the extension and required Headen to file a complete, short, and plain amended complaint by December 2, 2022. The court said the amended complaint must include the claims he initially brought and the claims he wished to pursue against San Mateo County, but it would not treat the hundreds of pages of additions as an amended complaint.
Judge Edward Chen denied Headen’s request for appointed counsel because the issues did not appear complex, his claims appeared likely to be blocked by legal rules, and his filings showed he could explain his claims without a lawyer. The order disposed of the motion.
The detailed version
- Headen v. Scott · No. 3:22-cv-01146
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 22, 2022
Background
Brian Christopher Headen filed this civil-rights action. On the same day, Magistrate Judge Illman received a similar complaint from Headen in a separate case. After that case was dismissed, Headen said he wanted to combine the two actions. The court gave him time to amend the complaint in this case so that he could state all of his claims. He later filed about 400 pages of additions.
Headen then moved for an extension of time to amend his complaint and for appointment of counsel. Appointment of counsel is a request for the court to designate a lawyer to represent a person who is proceeding without a lawyer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may do so in an exceptional case, considering both the apparent likelihood of success and the person's ability to present the claims.
Rulings
The court denied Headen’s motion for appointment of counsel. It found that the issues were not complex, that Headen did not appear likely to succeed based on the claims submitted so far, and that his filings showed he could adequately explain his claims without a lawyer. The court said the claims appeared potentially barred by rules discussed in the opinion as the Heck and Younger doctrines, but it did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
The court granted Headen’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. It set a deadline of December 2, 2022, and required the first page to include the order’s caption and civil case number and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court required the amended complaint to be a complete statement of the claims and to include both the claims initially presented in this action and the claims Headen wished to pursue against San Mateo County.
The court also stated that an amended complaint must contain a “short and plain statement” of the claims. Evidence could be submitted to support that statement, but the court would not treat the 400 pages of additions as an amended complaint. If Headen did not file a short and plain amended complaint by the deadline, the court would treat the claims initially filed against San Mateo County as waived, and this action would continue only as to the claims initially filed in this case. Judge Edward Chen stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 15.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.