Morris v. State of California
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-02620-HSG
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tairay Taqwain Morris v. Nancy Adams, Judge Gilliam granted Morris a second deadline extension to file an amended complaint addressing deficiencies in his disability claim.
Tairay Taqwain Morris, who received more time to file a second amended complaint, and the defendants in the action, including Nancy Adams and Risenhoover.
What happened
In Tairay Taqwain Morris v. Nancy Adams, the plaintiff asked for more time to file a second amended complaint. The court had previously extended the deadline after learning that he was no longer at his listed address.
The court granted the second extension and set November 30, 2022, as the new deadline. The complaint had to address problems in the disability claim and include every claim and defendant Morris wanted to pursue. The court also said he could not revive Eighth Amendment claims on which it had already granted summary judgment.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. warned that failing to file the amended complaint on time and in the required form could lead to dismissal for failing to pursue the case or follow a court order. The order ended the plaintiff’s extension request, docket item 61.
The detailed version
- Morris v. State of California · No. 4:19-cv-02620-HSG
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
Morris requested a second extension of time to file a second amended complaint. The original deadline was September 26, 2022. After the court learned that Morris was no longer housed at his address of record, it had previously extended the deadline to October 31, 2022, and sent that extension order to both his address of record and the address listed in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate locator.
Ruling
The court granted Morris’s second request for an extension. It ordered him to file the second amended complaint by November 30, 2022, addressing the deficiencies in his Americans with Disabilities Act claim identified in the court’s August 29, 2022 order.
The court explained that an amended complaint replaces earlier complaints completely. Morris therefore had to include all claims he wanted to present and all defendants he wanted to sue, and he could not incorporate material from earlier complaints by reference. He also could not change the nature of the case by asserting again the Eighth Amendment claims against Risenhoover and Adams on which the court had already granted summary judgment.
The court warned that failing to file the second amended complaint as required and by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. It also reminded Morris to keep the court informed of address changes and to follow court orders on time. The order terminated docket item 61.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.