Sunnergren v. Bright
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-00746
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sunnergren v. Bright, Judge Freeman granted in part the plaintiff’s request for more time to file a second amended complaint.
The order affected Mark E. Sunnergren’s deadline and pleading requirements, and it warned that claims against defendants other than Bright would be dismissed with prejudice if he did not timely file the required second amended complaint.
What happened
Sunnergren v. Bright is a civil-rights case brought without a lawyer by a California inmate against medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously dismissed the first amended complaint but allowed the plaintiff to amend it again.
The plaintiff asked for 45 more days to retrieve legal files, review them, and prepare a second amended complaint. The court granted the request in part and allowed 42 additional days from the original January 31, 2023 deadline. The new complaint had to use the court’s form and include specified case information and answers to all required questions.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman warned that failing to file on time would result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims against all defendants except Bright for failure to state a claim. The action would then proceed only against Bright on the Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims.
The detailed version
- Sunnergren v. Bright · No. 5:22-cv-00746
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 7, 2023
Background
Mark E. Sunnergren, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison, where the opinion says he was housed. On January 3, 2023, the court dismissed his first amended complaint but granted leave to amend. The court directed him to file a second amended complaint within 28 days.
Request for More Time
Sunnergren requested a 45-day extension because he needed to retrieve and review his legal files and prepare the second amended complaint. The court found good cause and granted the request in part. It gave him an extension of 42 days, or six weeks, measured from the original January 31, 2023 deadline.
The court required the second amended complaint to use the court’s form, include the caption and case number used in the order, and state “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Sunnergren also had to answer all questions on the form. The court explained that the second amended complaint would replace the original and first amended complaints; claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case.
Warning and Disposition
The court warned that failure to file the second amended complaint within the allowed time would result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims against all defendants except Defendant Bright for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The case would then proceed only against Bright on the Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims. The order terminated Docket No. 27.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.