Coleman v. Allen
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-04491
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coleman v. Allen, Judge Gilliam granted Coleman a final extension to amend his civil-rights complaint after finding pleading defects.
The order directly affected Rodney Victor Coleman by giving him a final deadline to file a complete amended complaint and warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action. The named defendants were not required to respond to the merits in this order.
What happened
In Coleman v. Allen, Rodney Victor Coleman filed a self-represented civil-rights case under a federal law allowing lawsuits over constitutional violations. The court had previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to amend it because his allegations were vague and did not adequately connect defendants to alleged violations.
Coleman then filed a motion titled “Leave to Amend,” but it did not name defendants or list claims and depended on his earlier filings. The court said this could not serve as an amended complaint and gave him a final extension, until March 13, 2023, to file a complete amended complaint.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Coleman to include every claim and defendant in the amended complaint without referring back to earlier pleadings. The order warned that failing to comply by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. Allen · No. 4:22-cv-04491
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
Rodney Victor Coleman, who was incarcerated at California State Prison–Los Angeles, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he had previously been housed. On October 13, 2022, the court dismissed his complaint with permission to amend. The court identified vague and conclusory allegations, a failure to link each defendant to an alleged constitutional violation, insufficient allegations against Warden Allen and Chief Deputy Warden Binkele, and insufficient allegations concerning violations of state law, prison policies, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court also explained that officials generally are not liable under Section 1983 merely for reviewing or denying grievances.
The Filing at Issue
Coleman filed a motion titled “Leave to Amend.” The filing addressed some of the concerns in the earlier screening order, but it did not name defendants or list causes of action. It also required the court to refer to both the original complaint and the earlier screening order. The court therefore ruled that the filing could not serve as an amended complaint. The court also noted that the filing repeated allegations the court had already said did not state a Section 1983 claim, including claims based on prison officials’ alleged failure to follow prison policies and their denial of grievances.
Ruling
The court granted Coleman a final extension of time, until March 13, 2023, to file an amended complaint. It instructed him to file a complaint that was complete on its own, answer all questions on the court form, and include every claim and defendant he wished to pursue. It prohibited incorporating the prior complaint or other pleadings by reference. The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. This order addressed the amendment deadline and pleading requirements; it did not decide the underlying constitutional or disability claims on their merits.
Disposition
Extension of time to file an amended complaint granted; a final deadline of March 13, 2023, was set.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.